Remove ads

Indestructible Spirit (Kancolle AU)

Reader mode
Genolution said:
I'm fairly sure hull code is designated around when the project is funded actually. It's the reason US battleships skip BB-46 and a bunch of other codes--they were assigned to the cancelled SoDaks (1920).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps, but that still means Saratoga would be CC-1, since she's the first battlecruiser. It's not that Constellation and Lexington were started and then cancelled, it's that they were converted into carriers part-way through construction.
 
SaltyWaffles said:
Perhaps, but that still means Saratoga would be CC-1, since she's the first battlecruiser. It's not that Constellation and Lexington were started and then cancelled, it's that they were converted into carriers part-way through construction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, Wikipedia and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships are in agreement that Saratoga was designated CC-3. Lexington was CC-1 and Constellation CC-2. And given the later cruiser redesignations, it's likely that she'd remain CC-3 in the event of Lexington and Constellation being converted and her being completed.
 
Last edited:
CV12Hornet said:
And given the later cruiser redesignations, it's likely that she'd remain CC-3 in the event of Lexington and Constellation being converted and her being completed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're talking about the CL->CA re-designation that Pensacola and Salt Lake City (and I think a couple of other treaty CAs) had right? They were renamed because of LNT stating that ships armed with 8" guns were to be Heavy Cruisers and not Light Cruisers. A bit different than a conversion.

I think in the case of the the CC-CV conversions, Saratoga would still be renumbered to CC-1 as she would be the first ship built to that design. She'd still be a Battlecruiser, thus she'd retain the numbering starting with the last Battlecruiser. Since we had no CCs, she would be the first and carry the CC-1 designation.

The CA designations happened before we laid down new cruiser hulls, so no numbering changes had to be made.
 
My take on it is that the USN doesn't seem to like assigning a ship a hull number if that number had previously been given to a different ship. West Virginia, by this train of logic, would've been numbered BB-47, since Standard!Washington was canceled and sunk as a target. But we know that didn't happen, Weavy kept BB-48. In addition, the numbers for the cancelled 1920 SoDaks weren't reused when American got back into the battleship building business.

Same deal with this, even though Lex and Constellation (Connie? Stella? Constelle?) were reordered as carriers, Sara would likely retain CC-3 as that was the number she was ordered with, and not be given Lex's old number, and there's really no need to change it.
 
It's not going to become really important soon to be fair. As I said when she was introduced, Sara (and Atago) are big in Arc 2, but are otherwise cameos right now.

This said, I've put a good deal of thought into her, Constellation, and how the situation in Britain is. Suffice to say that is going to be fun, in relation to their carriers and battlecruisers.
 
Nice story. I'm currently at chapter seven

But I made a little fan art for the story.
A shipbucket style drawing.
http://i.imgur.com/4ra0kE5.png
I gave Indestructible R-class superstructure as it would be the most likely style it would have.
She was old enough to get her refit at the same time Royal Sovereign class would.
In your story she was sunk in 1942 so it would be to early for the Large blocky superstructure the Warspite and other ships had during the war.

I was also working on, late war Implacable and Irresistible.
Cassamate mounts would be removed and the ship would be covered in 102mm 4''/45 QF HA and Bofors 40mm and 20mm cannons.
But it would be logical for them to have a single joined funnel, it would give the ships better firing arcs for the AA, guns. Single funnel on a battleship looks a bit off in my personal opinion.


Edit:
Here is Indy with 15in guns.
As I made the first pic I did not get to the part she has 15''/42 Mark I

http://i.imgur.com/XigM5WC.png
 
Last edited:

I like it. It looks, logically, like a battlecruiser should.

With that being said, we have an example of what an 'Indestructible' would look like. Pre-pagoda Haruna will be our example today.

Wikipedia said:
Haruna at Yokosuka, 11 Spetember, 1916
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


DAMMIT BRAIN!: So, now we have a profile shot, and an actual photo. Worldbuilding!
 
Last edited:
Gearhead said:
White Plains: Proof that you don't want to challenge anything American to a gunfight. It might surprise you. (That Heavy Cruiser was a Takao-class, Choukai to be exact.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is perhaps the lucky shot of the war. Or at least a strong contender. White Plains hit Chokai's torpedos, blowing them the hell up, and setting Chokai's superstructure afire.
 
PAGDTenno said:
That is perhaps the lucky shot of the war. Or at least a strong contender. White Plains hit Chokai's torpedos, blowing them the hell up, and setting Chokai's superstructure afire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I know. But Choukai still has to wonder when the day will come that someone will ask how she went down before and she has to admit she got gunned by an Escort Carrier.
 
Last edited:
Gearhead said:
I know. But Choukai still has to wonder when the day will come that someone will ask how she went down before and she has to admit she got gunned by an Escort Carrier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No Japanese Kanmusu will ask, even if they don't know she will say Layte and they will shut up.
USN Komatsu will not push because they know I would be a dick move to rub that battle in IJN face.*
Every other Kanmusu will not ask because it will be touchy subject.
Leyte is to the Japanese what Savo Island was to the US Navy.
A fuck up there is no excuse for!

*To their face anyway.
 
Last edited:
randompersonwith said:
Well, it could have been worse. it could have been a troopship:D
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or a tanker.
11 November 1942:
Indian Ocean. SW of the Cocos Islands. HOKOKU MARU attacks Captain Willem Horsman's 6,341-ton Royal Dutch Shell tanker ONDINA and her escort, LtCdr William J. Wilson's, RINR, Australian-built minesweeper HMIS BENGAL at 19-45S, 92-40E. BENGAL closes the range with HOKOKU MARU to protect the tanker.

At 1545 (JST), HOKOKU MARU opens fire. Both ships are damaged in the ensuing action. AIKOKU MARU is 6 miles NW of the scene and closing. A lucky shot from ONDINA's 4-inch gun hits HOKOKU MARU's starboard torpedo tube which had just been loaded. After the ensuing explosion, a fire breaks out that rages out of control and reaches the aft magazine. More explosions follow that blow out her sides. At 1752, HOKOKU MARU sinks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
PAGDTenno said:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the one flaw of the Type 93 "Long Lance". That O2 flask makes the torpedo extra-inclined to go boom when hit, instead of disintegrating, resulting in occasional loss of cruisers to troopships and carriers. In gun duels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Cruisers"
*Looks for a picture of Hokoku Maru*


Yeah, fair enough, that does indeed look like a cruise ship, the terror of tankers everywhere. :D
 
Starfield said:
"Cruisers"
*Looks for a picture of Hokoku Maru*

Yeah, fair enough, that does indeed look like a cruise ship, the terror of tankers everywhere. :D
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

When I was talking about cruisers, I was referring to the incident where White Plains (CVE-66) blew up the Chokai by hitting its torpedo tubes.
 
And this was a known and accepted hazard for the Type 93 torpedoes. The IJN thought the range, speed, wakeless engine and the big warhead carried by the Type 93s was worth the risk.
 
Jrandom said:
And this was a known and accepted hazard for the Type 93 torpedoes. The IJN thought the range, speed, wakeless engine and the big warhead carried by the Type 93s was worth the risk.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh, I'm not trying to claim the Long Lance wasn't a good torp - it was. But I'm saying that just like everything in life, there are trade-offs, and it's important to remember that.
 
It wasn't a problem endemic to the Long lance. Torpedo exploding on board your own ship happens quite often.

Last that I know of was nuclear submarine Kursk.
The earliest I know if Chinese cruiser blowing up in the battle of Yalu River in 1894-95 Sino-Japanese war.
One US fighter squadron claimed German destroyer being sunk, but 50cal aircraft fire, causing torpedo explosion.
(It wasn't a destroyer and it wasn't sunk)

If you think about it a torpedo is a main calibre sized explosive that you can't really armour because its so high up on the freeboard. Its one of the reasons why early torpedo tubes were under the water line.
US Navy did not put any TT on larger Cruiser because of that. Other Navies tried putting Torpedo tubes in places were even if it does blow up it will not take the whole ship with them (far not the stern) but even then they were not consequent with it. On a destroyer you don't have anywhere to put them, so you are stuck.

Similar thing applies to today's Missiles.
 
The Type 93 was a devastating weapon in the right hands. Just ask the Americans at Tassafarnoga. The Americans had superior forces, radar and surprise on their side. The Japanese had Raizo Tanaka, some luck and the Type 93.
 
PAGDTenno said:
Oh, I'm not trying to claim the Long Lance wasn't a good torp - it was. But I'm saying that just like everything in life, there are trade-offs, and it's important to remember that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And the Combined Fleet command staff looked it over and decided the trade offs were worth it back in the 30s.

With a range of some 20 KM, a speed of 50 knots, carrying a 490 Kg warhead, but at the risk of losing some ships because they would be detonated by enemy fire, it'd still be a trade off I'd seriously consider making.
 
Last edited:
Jrandom said:
And the Combined Fleet command staff looked it over and decided the trade offs were worth it back in the 30s.

With a range of some 20 KM, a speed of 50 knots, carrying a 490 Kg warhead, but at the risk of losing some ships because they would be detonated by enemy fire, it'd still be a trade off I'd seriously consider making.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

All right, let's stack that up against a Mark 15, which, in terms of basic design, is a pretty good torpedo, and a contemporary. It just had issues with the detonator and gyro, which were resolved by the end of the war.

Maximum speed: 45 knots
Maximum range: 13.6 km at 21 knots
Warhead: 375 kg HBX
Overall size: 21" diameter, 288" length (53 cm diameter, 731cm length), 1742 kg total mass.

Versus the Type 93, which was a much larger torpedo, with a 61 cm diameter, and a mass of 2700 kg.

It's a much larger torp overall. In fact, I'd say many of the Type 93's advantages arise from its much greater overall size, especially the range and warhead size advantages.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top