Indestructible Spirit (Kancolle AU)

[SaltyWaffles]

Moving on, Hood actually wasn't sent out to hunt Bismarck. Her and PoW were purposely put on the path the Brits thought was least likely to have them run into the Big German Girl. Both because the RN command was fully aware Hood was desperately outclassed and in need of refit, and because PoW was still working up with dockyard workers aboard. They got hilariously unlucky, that Bisko and Pringles went their way.

Click to shrink...

They didn't send Hood out to hunt Bismarck, but they left her on the list of ships that were allowed to directly engage Bismarck, and they placed her where she might be engaged by Bismarck. This was due to the lack of warships that had the speed to catch Bismarck, the firepower to threaten her, and the armor/protection to have good odds of surviving against her. Hood was one of the relative few that had the first two (which were necessary).

If they really didn't want Hood going up against Bismarck, they merely had to sail her the other way.

By 1940 standards, Hood was absolutely a battlecruiser--a battleship-sized vessel with good speed (though Wikipedia says she had a slower speed by 1941--28 knots, down from 31 in 1920) and battleship-grade firepower, but without the armor and protection of a battleship. Simply put, there should have been standing orders to not directly engage the Bismarck with Hood (unless they really had nothing else to fight her with...). Searching, picketing, shadowing--that's something you have aircraft/carriers, submarines, or destroyers do. That a battlecruiser was placed in a position where she might have to fight a fast battleship head on speaks of either incompetence on someone's part or a lack of capital ships that weren't either glass cannons or pitifully slow. Was the state of the Royal Navy in 1941 really so bad that one fast battleship--with just one heavy cruiser as escort--was so hard to locate, track, and intercept without risking capital ships explicitly not suited for the job? And if the necessary ships existed, but simply weren't available, that would simply speak of a rather mismanaged navy, rather than a relatively anemic one. Or am I just misunderstanding the situation as a whole?

 

[Skywalker_T-65]

No, it's pretty much they didn't have anything else. Hood's 28-knot speed? That's not extra armor compared to her original loadout.

That's her engines were so badly in need of refit she stripped a turbine at Mers-el-Kebir.

Hood was badly, badly, in need of a refit. She was such a symbol of the RN, that they didn't take her off duty to do so. That left her in the state she was in, going into the fight with Bismarck. The only other ships fast enough to catch Bisko were the KGVs (and even they aren't as fast) and the Renown-class BCs. Both of which were also involved, though Repulse had to pull out due to lack of fuel. And even the KGVs...only two of them were ready. KGV herself, and PoW. The latter wasn't even fully worked up.

And they did have cruisers pulling picket duty. Norfolk and Suffolk were shadowing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen the whole time. That Hood and PoW ended up in a position that they had to fight was due to bad luck- they weren't meant to fight -and the fact the RN was so strapped for ships that could reasonably catch Bismarck that they had to use a ship horribly in need of dock time, and one that wasn't even fully worked up.

Look at it this way. The RN's battleline was composed entirely of ships that were too slow. The NelRods? 23 knots. The QE's? 24-25. The Revenge-class? 21 knots.

The only ships they had that could catch up to Bismarck, were cruisers/DDs/carriers...and the ships already mentioned. Badly in need of dock time Hood. Incomplete PoW. KGV, who would eventually help sink Bismarck. Renown and Repulse, who would have been even worse off than Hood as proper BCs in every way, had they been in place to catch the Germans.

Royal Navy ships, most of the above having at least one member of their class mobilized, just weren't equipped to catch Bismarck.

 

[SaltyWaffles]

No, it's pretty much they didn't have anything else. Hood's 28-knot speed? That's not extra armor compared to her original loadout.

That's her engines were so badly in need of refit she stripped a turbine at Mers-el-Kebir.

Hood was badly, badly, in need of a refit. She was such a symbol of the RN, that they didn't take her off duty to do so. That left her in the state she was in, going into the fight with Bismarck. The only other ships fast enough to catch Bisko were the KGVs (and even they aren't as fast) and the Renown-class BCs. Both of which were also involved, though Repulse had to pull out due to lack of fuel. And even the KGVs...only two of them were ready. KGV herself, and PoW. The latter wasn't even fully worked up.

And they did have cruisers pulling picket duty. Norfolk and Suffolk were shadowing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen the whole time. That Hood and PoW ended up in a position that they had to fight was due to bad luck- they weren't meant to fight -and the fact the RN was so strapped for ships that could reasonably catch Bismarck that they had to use a ship horribly in need of dock time, and one that wasn't even fully worked up.

Look at it this way. The RN's battleline was composed entirely of ships that were too slow. The NelRods? 23 knots. The QE's? 24-25. The Revenge-class? 21 knots.

The only ships they had that could catch up to Bismarck, were cruisers/DDs/carriers...and the ships already mentioned. Badly in need of dock time Hood. Incomplete PoW. KGV, who would eventually help sink Bismarck. Renown and Repulse, who would have been even worse off than Hood as proper BCs in every way, had they been in place to catch the Germans.

Royal Navy ships, most of the above having at least one member of their class mobilized, just weren't equipped to catch Bismarck.

Click to shrink...

So...the RN was a combination of anemic and badly mismanaged?

(And when one of your relatively few capital ships is held back from a badly needed overhaul because she's a fucking symbol, you fail at navy management.)

KGV was simply not there. If they had Bismarck shadowed, Hood coming across Bismarck in an open fight was no accident. As for the others...why were the carriers not there? How many fleet carriers did Britain even have by then? Why did the Royal Navy only have one fast battleship fully operational by the time Germany had one? Were there any submarines sent to intercept Bismarck's shadowed (and thus known) course?

 

[Skywalker_T-65]

So...the RN was a combination of anemic and badly mismanaged?

(And when one of your relatively few capital ships is held back from a badly needed overhaul because she's a fucking symbol, you fail at navy management.)

Click to shrink...

Ayup. To be fair, it was a combination of her constantly serving as flagship (in both symbolic 'show the flag' and proper terms) before the war and the War itself, that kept her from refit. She was scheduled to get a refit in '41, or '42...but. Well, Bismarck happened.

KGV was simply not there. If they had Bismarck shadowed, Hood coming across Bismarck in an open fight was no accident. As for the others...why were the carriers not there? How many fleet carriers did Britain even have by then? Why did the Royal Navy only have one fast battleship fully operational by the time Germany had one? Were there any submarines sent to intercept Bismarck's shadowed (and thus known) course?

Click to shrink...

It wasn't an accident, for sure. That's why I say 'bad luck'. She ended up being the one in position with PoW to take Bismarck down, and for lack of other options...well, we have what happened. The carriers were...

*goes to check*

HMS Argus (not really a fleet carrier, mind), HMS Furious, HMS Eagle, HMS Hermes, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious, HMS Formidable, and HMS Victorious.

Of those, the ones in position to and involved in the hunt for Bismarck were...Victorious and Ark Royal. The latter had to sail from Gibraltar to join in. Argus and Furious were old as dirt, and really not fit for combat. Eagle was in the Med, I believe. Hermes in the Persian Gulf. Illustrious was being repaired. Formidable was in the Med. So only two fleet carriers were there for the hunt.

Turned out to be enough, thanks to that hit to her rudder, but still.

Suffice to say, the RN was...less than prepared...for the war. And yes, KGV was the only fast BB they had fully ready for the hunt. And I'm not sure on subs. The wiki page doesn't show it, and as it's 3am I can't go to the library for other sources.

Also, this entire discussion is proving quite illuminating. Haven't had to do research like this in a long time.

EDIT: Sleeping now. Will reply to anything that crops up in the morning.

 

[SaltyWaffles]

Ayup. To be fair, it was a combination of her constantly serving as flagship (in both symbolic 'show the flag' and proper terms) before the war and the War itself, that kept her from refit. She was scheduled to get a refit in '41, or '42...but. Well, Bismarck happened.



It wasn't an accident, for sure. That's why I say 'bad luck'. She ended up being the one in position with PoW to take Bismarck down, and for lack of other options...well, we have what happened. The carriers were...

*goes to check*

HMS Argus (not really a fleet carrier, mind), HMS Furious, HMS Eagle, HMS Hermes, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Illustrious, HMS Formidable, and HMS Victorious.

Of those, the ones in position to and involved in the hunt for Bismarck were...Victorious and Ark Royal. The latter had to sail from Gibraltar to join in. Argus and Furious were old as dirt, and really not fit for combat. Eagle was in the Med, I believe. Hermes in the Persian Gulf. Illustrious was being repaired. Formidable was in the Med. So only two fleet carriers were there for the hunt.

Turned out to be enough, thanks to that hit to her rudder, but still.

Suffice to say, the RN was...less than prepared...for the war. And yes, KGV was the only fast BB they had fully ready for the hunt. And I'm not sure on subs. The wiki page doesn't show it, and as it's 3am I can't go to the library for other sources.

Also, this entire discussion is proving quite illuminating. Haven't had to do research like this in a long time.

Click to shrink...

Good god, for a nation that was all about its navy and being the best navy in the world...shit, it's not like WW2 came out of nowhere, either. Was Britain hit by something like the Great Depression in the 30's, too? Although, considering the US most certainly was, and how well it was prepared for naval war across two oceans...yeah, I got nothing. Compared to the Royal Navy's unquestioned superiority over everyone else in WW1, and the massive battle lines of battlecruisers and battleships it fielded back then...and I fucking shudder to think of what would happen if the Royal Navy had gone up against the IJN in the Pacific (even if you were to hypothetically provide England's logistics directly to Australia as its base of operations). The word "slaughter" comes to mind.

The closest they got was Force Z...and, well, we know how that turned out. The IJN didn't even need to get involved for two of Britain's capital ships to be sunk in a matter of hours. Rejecting offers of air cover? Because radio silence is a totally acceptable substitute for air cover, right? Especially when you aren't actually maintaining radio silence. And man, a decent, tight screen of destroyers and/or cruisers is just wasteful. Battleships are perfectly fine on their own against aircraft.

(*something something Bismarck*)

And one battleship and one battlecruiser is a totally sufficient force against the array of Japanese battleships, fast battleships, submarines, and aircraft carriers.

 

[Lord K]

So...the RN was a combination of anemic and badly mismanaged?

(And when one of your relatively few capital ships is held back from a badly needed overhaul because she's a fucking symbol, you fail at navy management.)

KGV was simply not there. If they had Bismarck shadowed, Hood coming across Bismarck in an open fight was no accident. As for the others...why were the carriers not there? How many fleet carriers did Britain even have by then? Why did the Royal Navy only have one fast battleship fully operational by the time Germany had one? Were there any submarines sent to intercept Bismarck's shadowed (and thus known) course?

Click to shrink...

Technically their big problem was that they were dirt poor and scrapping the bottom of the barrel by the time war rolled around. While they still had more ships than anybody else at the time, what they lacked was the money to keep those ships relevant/competitive with new technologies and refits as the years rolled by (partly in thanks due to the sheer size and number of fleets needed to police so many territories and regions). Throughout the late 20s and 30s, succeeding British governments cut back on naval spending as it was an easy thing to promise in elections and deliver on, in part thanks to a general atmosphere of anti-war sentiments remaining from post-WWI and a public opinion that they didn't really need to build up/unwillingness to spend money on the navy when there was so much else the money would be "better spent on".

What this left the Royal Navy in was an absolutely horrid conundrum. They could build new ships and just do the bare minimum for the old ones, relying on a small force of particularly potent ships in the event of war. They could try and keep everything up to standard and risk falling behind in some areas. Or they could just cut back on the number of ships they had to look after in general. Unfortunately, they kind of found themselves doing all three at once, not helped by the fact that there was a large amount of both conflicting/competing schools of thought and stagnation in certain areas of the Royal Navy's inter-war development and the direction it should take. Combined with having their knees constantly cut out from under them by budget cuts and economic slumps, the need to still keep putting out new capital ships to compete with the Americans, Japanese, and then later the Germans, and the cost of having to service or loan ships to the far reaches of the empire, they ended up not just neglecting much needed refits for a number of ships (Hood being the most glaring example), but also fell behind the technological curve in certain areas (Naval Aviation being slightly forgivable due to most predictions being that the next war would be in continental Europe and in range of British and French land airfields), and even more unwisely scrapped a lot of vessels they really ended up needing by the time of WWII.

Britain actually suffered severely thanks to a lack of cruisers and destroyers at the beginning of the war (and really throughout as well), something known about since the mid-late 30's when the Admiralty specifically mentioned they had something like only three quarters of the cruisers needed to reliably defend both Britain and the colonies, especially their territories in the pacific (their budget got cut that year anyway). By the time of WWII, they also had something like only two thirds of the destroyers they estimated they would actually need, thanks to the destroyer fleet being culled by something like half it's number since WWI to save money (their estimates of what they would need were kind of low anyway, especially since nobody really foresaw the kind of return and then horribly effective escalation of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare that had made even the early submarines so problematic in WWI). In both the cases of the destroyers and cruisers, the Admiralty was of the opinion that while they had a number of good ones, a greater number of them were no longer superior or just barely equal to what other nations were now putting out, and in some cases actually somewhat obsolete.

This is why the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" was a thing. Britain didn't just lack the time to build new ships, they didn't have the money to either, most of which at that point was still wrapped up in financing desperately needed cruiser and capital ship construction from the later part of the 30's, that only finished just as the war began. They were mostly on top of the Destroyer issue by the end of the war, but their next goal of finally getting the Fleet Air Arm to a point where it wasn't flying 75% American designed and built aircraft never materialized, since by the time they got around to it, the war was over, and Britain was dead broke.

 

[Aldon]

(And when one of your relatively few capital ships is held back from a badly needed overhaul because she's a fucking symbol, you fail at navy management.)

Click to shrink...

Less because she's a symbol and more because the planned overhaul was extensive including dramatic up armouring. They needed to wait and clear some other heavy ships into operation. It was either keep her going until something that could fill her role came into service or leave a hole both shitty options. The Washington treaty kind of screwed them in that regard because it gutted their BC numbers and then the depression kept them gutted.

Also while we now know the specs for the Bismarck, at the time the Germans were playing silly numbers with the official tonnage for the ship. The British knew she was a bit bigger than advertised they didn't know just how much bigger she was. The estimates put her in a similar weight range to the Hood not the 50 000t that she actually was. Blame the intel weenies.

 

[Lord K]

Good god, for a nation that was all about its navy and being the best navy in the world...shit, it's not like WW2 came out of nowhere, either. Was Britain hit by something like the Great Depression in the 30's, too?

Click to shrink...

Britain actually was hit badly by the Depression and they also had an economic slump in the late 30's a few years just after finally getting out of it IIRC. Their economy didn't really tank persay, but considering they never really recovered from WWI in the first place, it didn't help. There was also a workforce and manpower shortage in both England and France due to a population/age group bottleneck. All those men being away from home or killed through WWI meant that there was a lack of people being born through most of the late 1910's, and thus there was a lack of new 15-20 somethings entering the workforce in the mid-late thirties. The late 30s to early 40s actually should have seen an upswing of people entering the workforce and cheaper labour thanks to a slight post-WWI baby boom (something the economy was banking on), but unfortunately most of the men from this age group ended up going off to war in WWII

 

[Guillocuda]

The Hood's main armour belt wasn't all that much thinner than most other BBs of either war; 12 inch armour sloped at 12 degrees for it's main belt.
Nagato also had a 12" belt.

 

[SaltyWaffles]

The Hood's main armour belt wasn't all that much thinner than most other BBs of either war; 12 inch armour sloped at 12 degrees for it's main belt.
Nagato also had a 12" belt.

Click to shrink...

Only at its thickest. And the slope in its armor meant that it was especially vulnerable to plunging fire--a very big deal against battleships. Nagato was significantly better armored.

 

[Aldon]

Only at its thickest. And the slope in its armor meant that it was especially vulnerable to plunging fire--a very big deal against battleships. Nagato was significantly better armored.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much all belt armour tapered. Nagato's belt armour was tapered. I'm not sure if you actually meant something else or not. Maximum belt thickness is the pretty much universal way of describing belt armour.

Nagato's belt was 305mm to 100mm. Hood's belt was 305-152mm. Both belts seem to stop at a similar point below the waterline.

A sloped belt doesn't make you more vulnerable to plunging fire unless you sloped it outwards which they didn't do. It slopes inwards increasing the relative thickness against falling shells. The relatively thin deck armour of the hood was what made her vulnerable to plunging fire. They knew this was a problem which was why the refit was going to include an upgrade to the deck armour. Though nobody really knows where the shot that killed her landed. I've seen various claims with above, below and through the belt which narrows it down to somewhere on the ship that lined up with a magazine. Hell they could have just been doing a Jutland and horribly handling their cordite.

 

[Guillocuda]

Unfortunately, the Hood's armour -was- angled outwards, and from what I've read, the front half of the ship had sufficient deck armour (6 inches or so), but the rear only had... 3 inches? Part of the Big Repair that never happened was extending the rear deck armour to match the front deck. Hood had slightly more (depending on source) displacement to armour than the Nagato, as well (33% to 32.6%)

However, the Hood's armour was krupp cemented steel, and not crappy Japanese steel.

 

[Aldon]

Unfortunately, the Hood's armour -was- angled outwards

Click to shrink...

Hmm no it was angled in. The top was further out the bottom further in. At least that is what the armour profile pictures all show. This is exactly what the Iowa class also did with their belt armour.

 

[SaltyWaffles]

Hmm no it was angled in. The top was further out the bottom further in. At least that is what the armour profile pictures all show. This is exactly what the Iowa class also did with their belt armour.

Click to shrink...

Can you post those armor profile pictures?

Because the one I found clearly shows an armor layout that is slanted outwards, all the way from the bottom to the top, like a V. So yeah, the Hood was especially vulnerable to plunging fire--but she was pretty damn vulnerable to any kind of battleship.

It's worth noting that the Hood's main deck armor was an average of 2 inches, and its upper deck armor was, in some places, as little as 3/4rths of an inch. The forecastle had less than two inches of armor.

This is worth looking at:

Loss of HMS Hood - Part 3

---

Oh, and as a side note: the Nagato-class' armor was made with Vickers cemented armor.

 

[Selonianth]

Something that continues to confuse me in these snips is the fact that Indestructible can't seem to decide if she's a battlecruiser or a battleship. She calls herself a battlecruiser, then two lines later it's "The destroyer pushed against the Battleship."

 

[SaltyWaffles]

Something that continues to confuse me in these snips is the fact that Indestructible can't seem to decide if she's a battlecruiser or a battleship. She calls herself a battlecruiser, then two lines later it's "The destroyer pushed against the Battleship."

Click to shrink...

I think she was originally built as a battlecruiser, but was overhauled into a fast battleship before WW2? Just like the Kongo-class ships were in OTL.

 

[Selonianth]

I think she was originally built as a battlecruiser, but was overhauled into a fast battleship before WW2? Just like the Kongo-class ships were in OTL.

Click to shrink...

Which is cool, but then she's a battleship. Not a battlecruiser. You are *not* both.

One has big guns but couldn't stand against its own shells. The other's armor is typically supposed to be able to tank its own guns.

 

[Aldon]

One has big guns but couldn't stand against its own shells. The other's armor is typically supposed to be able to tank its own guns.

Click to shrink...

Except she's British and the defining feature for a British BC was for a long time to be a BB that does over 24 knots. Generally this was done by having less armour but that wasn't required. What the British called BCs were ships that many nations would call a FBB.

 

[Selonianth]

Except she's British and the defining feature for a British BC was for a long time to be a BB that does over 24 knots. Generally this was done by having less armour but that wasn't required. What the British called BCs were ships that many nations would call a FBB.

Click to shrink...

No. No they weren't. Hood was a Battlecruiser. Her side armor may have been comparable in thickness, but not in quality, to Nagato's. Her armor literally everywhere else was so much dinkier it was pathetic.

The British fucking invented battlecruisers, they were the idea of a British Admiral. The idea was literally a Battleship sized cruiser with battleship guns. They did *not* have the armor to stand up against a battleship, that's why so many of them sunk, it took the British despairingly long to figure that out.

 

[Aldon]

No. No they weren't. Hood was a Battlecruiser. Her side armor may have been comparable in thickness, but not in quality, to Nagato's. Her armor literally everywhere else was so much dinkier it was pathetic.

The British fucking invented battlecruisers, they were the idea of a British Admiral. The idea was literally a Battleship sized cruiser with battleship guns. They did *not* have the armor to stand up against a battleship, that's why so many of them sunk, it took the British despairingly long to figure that out.

Click to shrink...

Hood wiki
Royal Navy documents of the period often describe any battleship with a maximum speed over 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour. For instance, the never-built G3 battlecruiser was classified as such, although it would have been more of a fast battleship than Hood.

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry I don't have the book that quote is directly from available but since it's referenced I'm going to go with it.

 

[Firefinder12-B]

For Bismarck sinking the Hood it most certainly didn't help that during the German ship design process they used the Hood as a bench mark to beat. And during training the Hood was their target. So yeah, Hood was more or less doomed from the moment she spotted Bismarck.

 

[Skywalker_T-65]

Can't reply to things in detail yet.

But

I've mentioned before, in the 'is Indy a BC or BB' thing. The issue is in Royal Navy terminology. The Hiei (and OTL Kongou) class girls were rebuilt the same as the Indestructible-class in Indy-verse. And the Japanese reclassed them as Fast BBs, most countries agreeing with that. If not all. So logically, the Brits should consider the Indy sisters as such as well.

However. They don't. Note that Indy is the only one of her sisters to consider herself a battleship. Irresistible and Implacable have only ever referred to themselves as BCs. The Brits would, from what I know, continue to refer to them as such...they may have been updated and upgraded, but fundamentally, they would still be battlecruiser hulls. Look at Hood, who has more armor than even updated Kongou-class girls, and would have had yet more added. But she was always a battlecruiser, in British eyes.

Same logic with the Indy sisters. Indy herself is an oddity, due in large part to her Japanese sisters, in considering herself a battleship instead.

EDIT: If both are mentioned in relation to Indy without a Brit around, it's probably a typo. Will fix when I have time.

EDIT The Second: In other news, the Swedish ships omake I promised? I'm merging that now...the next omake/snip series (likely in my snip thread, maybe in here if wanted) will be a side story focused on Seydlitz.

Both of them. Which, yes, does mean we have my first time writing from an Abyssal perspective.

The merger comes from the fact that the Nordic girls will focus as well as Ze Germans.

 

[SaltyWaffles]

No. No they weren't. Hood was a Battlecruiser. Her side armor may have been comparable in thickness, but not in quality, to Nagato's. Her armor literally everywhere else was so much dinkier it was pathetic.

The British fucking invented battlecruisers, they were the idea of a British Admiral. The idea was literally a Battleship sized cruiser with battleship guns. They did *not* have the armor to stand up against a battleship, that's why so many of them sunk, it took the British despairingly long to figure that out.

Click to shrink...

Basically, this. The United States converted what would have been its BCs into fleet carriers. Japan did the same with Amagi and Akagi, except the earthquake happened, so only Akagi survived to be converted; Kaga was converted in Amagi's place. The Kongo-class was overhauled into being quasi-fast BBs. AFAIK, only the British still retained actual battlecruisers by WW2...and two of them were sunk in a rather one-sided fashion whilst deployed against enemies it was explicitly not designed to go against, while a third was overhauled and up-armored. I honestly have no idea if battlecruisers were ever employed in the role they were specifically designed for. Granted, Germany's battlecruisers were seemingly employed in the same mistaken fashion, but only once AFAIK.

It's especially ironic, since battlecruisers would have been useful in WW2...as escorts for fleet carriers (which were so fast that only fast battleships could keep up with them...or battlecruisers) and as gunboats (for shore bombardment, as the USN used its battleships for frequently, and the IJN used its battleships for a grand total of once, IIRC).

 

[SV5195R]

EDIT The Second: In other news, the Swedish ships omake I promised? I'm merging that now...the next omake/snip series (likely in my snip thread, maybe in here if wanted) will be a side story focused on Seydlitz.

Both of them. Which, yes, does mean we have my first time writing from an Abyssal perspective.

The merger comes from the fact that the Nordic girls will focus as well as Ze Germans.

Click to shrink...

So, basically, this omake series will be focusing on the Baltic?

 

[SaltyWaffles]

I'm sorry I don't have the book that quote is directly from available but since it's referenced I'm going to go with it.

Click to shrink...

By that logic, the King George V-class battleships would have been designated as battlecruisers by Britain. Which is hilariously wrong.

And having originally been a battlecruiser hull is irrelevant (logically speaking); ask Saratoga, Lexington, or Akagi. Ship conversions are a thing. But I get what you mean, T-65.