Ummm... Actually no they're not.
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Indestructible Spirit (Kancolle AU)
- Thread starter Skywalker_T-65
- Start date
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Kumano wasn't sunk at anchor, actually. She was sunk at sea, after being attacked by both submarines and air strikes.
Which they actually did in the case of Naka. From Sendai-class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... which could be horrifying for Sendai and Jintsuu to learn...
Last edited:
Walky
SV's Silent Reader
- Location
- Somewhere on the Internet
They didn't know it's a war grave, they only think it's a ship wreck. And because ship wreck = precious metals, they'll go there and raid the place! Even if that means they have to jump borders...
I never knew there's a war grave near Indonesia, until I start hanging out here. I blame the History books provided by the government! They never talk about naval wars! I didn't even know anything about Battle of the Java Sea until now...
Mega1987
A TTK somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
- Location
- somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
and some parents say we cant learn anything from games.....
we can learn something from them, if we do our own research...
Kumano was sunk inside Santa Cruz Harbor, actually, where she had made emergency repairs after being hit hard by both submarines and aircraft.
TROM for Suzuya said:
Kicker
A perfectionist with an inferiority complex.
- Location
- Malaysia
WTF?! EARTHQUAKES IN JAPAN HAS FIRE?
I DON'T WANNA GO TO JAPAN ANYMORE!
Mega1987
A TTK somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
- Location
- somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
nah!
unless you're reacting too much....
the earthquake might just case some flammable substance and other volatile substances used on metal works to explode by getting crushed by falling debris or caused some leak and was exposed to a nearby spark from any electrical wiring.
CompassJimbo
Where’s Your North?
- Location
- The former Rubber Capital of the World
The Japanese tended to use a lot of flammable materials in their construction. Something sparked during the quake and caused Tokyo to burn.
Mega1987
A TTK somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
- Location
- somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
And cue.
Another japan made movie about it getting invaded.
Stary shots were fired and watch the city burn fast....
Glitchrr36
Slick's Short Company, CEO
- Location
- The Wastes
- Pronouns
- He/Him
But Naka is a cruiser. Amagi was either an aircraft carrier or battleship, which tend too be significantly larger, and thus harder to fix.
Mega1987
A TTK somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
- Location
- somewhere at Kancolle's Iwagawa Airfield
But the concept is still the same.
They both suffer irrepairable damage to their kneel that it's either do it all over again or scrap it all together.
Naka is a light cruiser while Amagi is a battlecruiser.
Rebuilding Naka from scratch is Far more feasible than doing it to Amagi.
Due to the amount and quality of raw materials needed to construct a light cruiser is far more less than a Battlecruiser.
- Location
- United States of America
Well it all has to do with the Washington navel treaty which. Those battleships were meant to be battleships but their was a provision in the treaty which allowed pre-existing capital ship hull to be converted into aircraft carriers, so thats what they did, why build a new ship from the keel up when you can convert a ship that is half way done.
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Of course, they did so with a terrible triple-decked design, which pretty much immediately had to be reconverted (along with Akagi), making those two fleet carriers cost a goddamn fortune.
Meanwhile, the US' first carrier is a converted coal shipper, and its next carriers are neat, relatively simple conversions of two battlecruiser hulls into the excellent Lexington-class designs, which stay highly effective with relatively little modification all the way through WW2.
...and then it makes Ranger, its first purpose-built, keel-up carrier design, which is good but apparently inadequate for Pacific (or even front-line) operations by WW2...somehow? I could never figure that one out.
Meanwhile, the US' first carrier is a converted coal shipper, and its next carriers are neat, relatively simple conversions of two battlecruiser hulls into the excellent Lexington-class designs, which stay highly effective with relatively little modification all the way through WW2.
...and then it makes Ranger, its first purpose-built, keel-up carrier design, which is good but apparently inadequate for Pacific (or even front-line) operations by WW2...somehow? I could never figure that one out.
The Ranger could barely make 28 knots on a good day. I think it was more along 26, been awhile since I look it up.
Plus she carry like 50-60 planes compare other USN carriers 75-90.
She was more useful on convoy duty.
And I think she was smaller too...
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
Pretty much. Ranger was built small for a fleet carrier, and that was why she couldn't serve in the Pacific. Her speed was lower, her capacity was lower...basically, she was more useful as our token Fleet Carrier in the Atlantic after we sent all our other pre-war ones to the Pacific. Ranger wasn't even sent to the Pacific until the end of the war, and even then, as a night-flight training ship.
There was talk of refitting her to be faster. But it would have entailed expanding her hull and other rather invasive stuff. Stuff that would cost too much, with the swarm of Essex girls we had at the time. Why bother upgrading an old and (relatively) slow carrier when we're building more modern carriers than we know what to do with?
That said, Ranger got to help at Torch so she got some combat in!
EDIT: Also, Ranger got hit by the same thing that hit Wasp later on. The USN- after converting Langley, Lex and Sara -had a set amount of tonnage they could devote to carriers. In an effort to stretch that out as much as possible, they built Ranger small. 14k tons, or thereabouts.
The goal was to get as many carriers out of the allotted tonnage as possible...and while that lead to the excellent-for-their-size Yorktowns, it also lead to Ranger.
There was talk of refitting her to be faster. But it would have entailed expanding her hull and other rather invasive stuff. Stuff that would cost too much, with the swarm of Essex girls we had at the time. Why bother upgrading an old and (relatively) slow carrier when we're building more modern carriers than we know what to do with?
That said, Ranger got to help at Torch so she got some combat in!
EDIT: Also, Ranger got hit by the same thing that hit Wasp later on. The USN- after converting Langley, Lex and Sara -had a set amount of tonnage they could devote to carriers. In an effort to stretch that out as much as possible, they built Ranger small. 14k tons, or thereabouts.
The goal was to get as many carriers out of the allotted tonnage as possible...and while that lead to the excellent-for-their-size Yorktowns, it also lead to Ranger.
Last edited:
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It was a bad compromise, really, at least in terms of how they used those extra fleet carriers; they used both Ranger and Wasp like escort carriers (at best) and plane ferries (at worst). Really, they could have simply built some seaplane tenders or escort carriers and used them in those roles rather than squander two fleet carriers.
Ranger wasn't that much smaller than the Yorktowns. And considering the timing of when Japan backed out of the Treaty and when Wasp was built, it's kind of hard to imagine why they didn't simply build Wasp like a Yorktown (or at close as possible to one).
And then there was the fact that the US had zero light carriers until well into WW2. The fact that Japan had several of them from the start was a major advantage for them.
Ultimately, it's rather alarming how often the US fleet carriers (ALL of them, not just Ranger and Wasp) got used for plane ferrying duties and nothing else (mainly in the first several months of the war). Wasting a fleet carrier on escorting a convoy that can only travel 15-17 knots is just...
Last edited:
Selonianth
Writer of Words
Actually they couldn't do it again because of the reason they were converting Amagi in the first place.
The naval treaties meant they couldn't build another Battleship (Tosa) or Battlecruiser (Amagi) so they had to convert one of them (Amagi) and simply didn't finish the other ones (originally both Tosa and Kaga, then Amagi got broked and they converted Kaga instead).
So they couldn't simply rebuild Amagi because she was originally a Battlecruiser. Which they couldn't build. So if they wanted to name another carrier Amagi they'd have had to build a purpose built carrier instead of a convert, so it wouldn't be the same Amagi anyway.
On top of that, all of this would be exceedingly stupid to do since you *have* a mostly completed Kaga you can convert in her place.
- Location
- State of Denial
Basically because while Japan backed out of the London/Washington Treaties, the US, Britain, and I want to say France were still bound by them. That's where the North Carolinas got their 16" guns from instead of the 14" they were originally designed for, the 'escalator clause' allowing increases in tonnage and gun caliber were invoked when it was obvious Japan was going big or going home on their new battleships (we didn't know quite HOW big, but it was obvious they would be way over the treat limits). Carrier tonnage wasn't affected though, so we were stuck with what we had.
Also, coordinating a strike from one large carrier is much, much simpler than one from two smaller carriers even if the same total number of aircraft are involved, so it makes sense to build a few big ones than more small ones in a given fixed tonnage. Plus bad experiences with Ranger probably biased the USN further against using small carriers. There was a lot of resistance to the escort carrier concept even during the war with the pressing need for convoy escorts, it took several successful operations and quite a bit of wrangling before they were really accepted.
Granted, using a fleet carrier as an airplane ferry is silly, but again you use what you have. For what its worth though, it's a lot faster to use a carrier to move those planes than a conventional freighter or even seaplane tender, not least since they can be flown off and landed at the designated airfield rather than the ship having to be vulnerable while unloading in port.
And I think both the Brits and the Canada's tried seaplane carriers on the convoy routes. These routines were more northern then standard shipping routes were at the time, which cause of a certain liner were pushed south for safety, to cut the distance.
The problem was that the sea were to rough for seaplanes to land, I think wave higher then five feet grounded them. I remember reading somewhere that in that area of the Atlantic wave height average six-seven feet. Either way it was not safe to do seaplane ops in the North Atlantic. Unlike the South Pacific which was generally bath tub water smooth.
So seaplane would be useless.
Plus we needed a fleet carrier in the Atlantic.
The lesser capable USS Ranger, when compared to the Lexs and Yorktowns, was ideal for it.
Here's some figures.
Ranger full load weighs in at 17,577 tons with a normal load of 76 planes and a max of 86, and a top speed of 29 knots. Armor 2 inches
Lexingtons= 43,000 tons, 78 planes and top speed of 33 knots. Armor 7 inches.
Yorktowns = 25,500 tons, 32 knots and 90 planes. Armor 4 inches
USS Wasp= 19,423 tons, 29 knots, and up to 100 planes. No armor or TDS.
The Ranger while carrying a similar number of planes was slower and had less armor then the other carriers besides Wasp who basic drop her armor for more planes. Which caused her to go up in flames from one hit.
But like I said we needed a Fleet carrier in the Atlantic, and Ranger was the best choice.
Remember it wasn't until nearly 1943 until the first light carriers came on line and by that time we were dropping Essexs like cookie cutters.
Why send an old carrier when the newer far more capable ones are available?
The problem was that the sea were to rough for seaplanes to land, I think wave higher then five feet grounded them. I remember reading somewhere that in that area of the Atlantic wave height average six-seven feet. Either way it was not safe to do seaplane ops in the North Atlantic. Unlike the South Pacific which was generally bath tub water smooth.
So seaplane would be useless.
Plus we needed a fleet carrier in the Atlantic.
The lesser capable USS Ranger, when compared to the Lexs and Yorktowns, was ideal for it.
Here's some figures.
Ranger full load weighs in at 17,577 tons with a normal load of 76 planes and a max of 86, and a top speed of 29 knots. Armor 2 inches
Lexingtons= 43,000 tons, 78 planes and top speed of 33 knots. Armor 7 inches.
Yorktowns = 25,500 tons, 32 knots and 90 planes. Armor 4 inches
USS Wasp= 19,423 tons, 29 knots, and up to 100 planes. No armor or TDS.
The Ranger while carrying a similar number of planes was slower and had less armor then the other carriers besides Wasp who basic drop her armor for more planes. Which caused her to go up in flames from one hit.
But like I said we needed a Fleet carrier in the Atlantic, and Ranger was the best choice.
Remember it wasn't until nearly 1943 until the first light carriers came on line and by that time we were dropping Essexs like cookie cutters.
Why send an old carrier when the newer far more capable ones are available?
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
Quibble here, Wasp went up because her Avgas lines were still full. Her sinking lead to all carriers to purge their AvGas lines with inert CO2 prior to engaging.
That is true but the thing is that probably wouldn't have happened if she had a TDS which would have lessen the damage to the point where she may have been saved.
TKB17
Playing with portals!
- Location
- Up! Down!
Was it CO2? I thought they used argon gas. Could very well be miss remembering though.
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
i can't remember the exact gas, but it was inert.