wtdtd
slow thinker, with crippling abundance of time
- Location
- The Netherlands
this needs so much explanation.
Kantai Collection - Fanfic Idea and Recs
- Thread starter sasahara17
- Start date
this needs so much explanation.
- Location
- Iceland
Look for a Radspitz tune named "Der Isländer" (alternatively "Iceland Call").
The chorus of the former goes roughly: "When the Icelander calls, our blood freezes". It was written around Iceland's unexpected success in the 2016 EM – made it to the quarter finals – and what was called the 'Viking clap' or the 'Viking war chant'. See below:
As for how the Coasties arrived so heavily mob-handed… could be angry Icelanders. Or mad football hooligans.
Edit: And if you care for an odd aside, the Iceland Music Information Centre actually engraved and published this as "HÚ! for 10% of the Icelandic people" (roughly the number of Icelanders that made the journey to France to watch).
Last edited:
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Quick hypothetical question - how hilariously terribad, on a scale of one to ten with one being 'pretty sketchy' and ten being 'creating a whole new category of stupidity' would it be to have a set of units made up of two heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, and one destroyer each? In terms of actual naval warfare, not gameplay mechanics. To my ill-educated eye it seems almost feasable, with a decent level of speed and maneuverability yet the advanced firepower the CAs bring to bear, but I'm sure that there's probably several reasons I am presently unaware of why this would be a Bad Thing.
Last edited:
Answer: the best answer probably "depends on many things". Their equipments, their supposed enemies, their enemies capabilities, crew capabilities, their roles as fleet, their rule of engagements, etc. etc. Even terms "destroyers" and "cruisers" only represent their tonnage, not their capabilities in general. Different countries had different doctrine and resources.
Personally though, I see nothing wrong with this arrangement. Destroyers aplenty in WW2 because they're relatively easy to built, but in total projected firepower, doesn't really do much and they can't pack some bigger guns for various reasons.
Okay, just for funsies, I saw RYAN COOP3R guide videos which... kinda morbidly funny. I can never think about "torpedobeat", "fortune cookies", and "Old Spice" without some laugh and cringe.
Depands on the job and the nature casue ships are design to a nations doctrine planning.*
Generally through you will have more destroyers, like five to eight more since they were expandable, the most numerous, and generally the only ships that had ASW gear. PLus the CAs and CL didn't really have that much difference in firepower and in some causes, like in the USN, CAs had less.
But from what I seen of history... That is a semi good shore bombardment fleet as is.
For patrols or escorts raise the amount of DDs or DEs cause you need a lot for a good ASW screen. Which involves a DD on each side of the formation to allow their sensors to work.
*For example all of the German ships (including the BBs) had sonar installed for the simple reason as they known that they probably didn't have enough DDs to do the job. Hell the Prinz Eugens GHG array is literally the directed grandfather of the modern USN sonar arrays. In the US only the DDs and DEs had sonar arrays cause they were suppose to hurt subs, not CLs, CAs, CVs, or BBs. The brits were of the same thinking. Thru the KVGs class were fitted for but not with Asdic systems for Convey use. SO were the IJN but Musashi did have a sonar system and depth charges install after being torped by a sub. Anyways the larger German ships use their sonar to detect surface ships, PRinz and Bismarck apparently heard Hood and Wales several minutes before their radar did, to detect torpedoes.
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Alright, that makes sense. I'm going with IJN and changing it to two DDs per unit rather than one. Not a super drastic increase, (due to other confines I'm working within) but hopefully at least somewhat sensible for a quick-striking team.
- Location
- Barcelona, Catalunya, EU (for now)
Well, to be honest, it feels like a task force tailored for some specific mission. The most glaring weakness is a lack of destroyers. Unless you're sending that force to harass shipping lines or something similar, in which case less destroyers makes some sense. But sending heavy cruisers to harass shippping lines is something the Germans would do, so there's that.
A generic task force should include at least one force projector, like a CV or BB, one or two CAs, up to three CLs, and a minimum of four DDs. For mission-specific objectives, even that composition may change.
But it also depends on the country's tactical doctrine, which would dictate the armaments of the different types of ships.
So it's hard to judge if the composition is stupid or not, just knowing the types involved. It could be a good composition for a decoy fleet to distract the enemy main force away from your real push, for example. But it would be a disaster if used as a head-on opposing force to BBs, or CVs.
Hmm... Hit and run or smash and grab?
Cause for a hit and run the standard, yes the navies actually had a standard for this shit*, was two-four DDs and two CAs for the Japanese.
*While there was variations on it I believe the usual planning was something long of lines of run in at flank, fire for x amount of time, GTFO. The time spent firing was decided by the targets hardness, number, risk of return fire, and what ships you were using. This was very common so they had a standard written down in a TM somewhere. Probably still do...
Smash and grab was one of those things that you specifically come up with a plan for each instance cause they are so rare. Cause some can be done by subs. Others, Carriers, battleships the works.
There is a reason why some much time and money is spent training people this.
Exterminatus
Tsukumogami User
- Location
- Southern California
It'll probably do fine in surface actions so long as it isn't outnumbered or run unexpectedly into battleship(s). For anti-air action, it depends a lot on circumstances, equipment, training, etc.
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Alright. Yeah, it would mainly be intended for surface action, either hit-and-run, or to lure away and attack smaller ships in a larger battle, used in conjunction with heavier forces making the main push. Sounds like the big weakness would be anti-air capabilites, so I'd have to do some research and figure out which ships in the pool I'm working with would be best to cover that.
Anti air and anti submarines. And you can't just split focus between them, since the result will be... underperform.
AFAIK, best way on giving pain on subs is basically using depth charges. Lots of depth charges. In lots of places (Just in case).
And for AA, your goal when you don't have SAM basically translates to fill the air with fiery death. Literally.
So, you see, there is a bit problem if you had to deal with dedicated force, without additional support. Of course, if friendly airbase/ artillery encampment are close enough....
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
The big weakness is a single destroyer won't be enough to even screen against a sub that got lucky and parked along your course. (This setup, right down to the single destroyer sweeping ahead, is more or less exactly how the Japanese lost Kako to S-44 in reality.) Unless you literally don't have the ships then it's hard to imagine sending a pair of heavy cruisers anywhere without at least a DesDiv of four ships sweeping ahead of them. And even then you'll want to move reasonably fast, fifteen to twenty knots so that submarines can't slip in after the destroyers pass and get to firing range.
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Good point; and relying on an airfield and artillery support to be in the vicinity would necessarily limit range of operations. Might make sense with a more defensive setup, but not for this. So moar destroyers is a must. Hmm.
Last edited:
- Location
- Barcelona, Catalunya, EU (for now)
Even before knowing it was IJN, my first thought was "it lacks destroyers". As Night said, two CAs warrant at least four destroyers.
If you want and example of a distractive fleet take the (sniff) Nishimura Fleet. It was composed of two BBs, one CA and four DDs. Their intent wasn't to take anything exactly, but distract USN forces away from the main push., and eventually, together with the Shima Fleet (which consisted of two CAs, one CL, and another 4 DDs), join the main push in Leyte Gulf.
And boy did they succeed. The US filled Surigao Strait with PT boats and destroyers to ambush the incoming fleet, and if they managed to get past that, there were six battleships and at least eight cruisers waiting to drop on them.
Here's the order of battle:
Obviously, the IJN force got curbstomped.
If you want and example of a distractive fleet take the (sniff) Nishimura Fleet. It was composed of two BBs, one CA and four DDs. Their intent wasn't to take anything exactly, but distract USN forces away from the main push., and eventually, together with the Shima Fleet (which consisted of two CAs, one CL, and another 4 DDs), join the main push in Leyte Gulf.
And boy did they succeed. The US filled Surigao Strait with PT boats and destroyers to ambush the incoming fleet, and if they managed to get past that, there were six battleships and at least eight cruisers waiting to drop on them.
Here's the order of battle:
Obviously, the IJN force got curbstomped.
Burning Baron
This position needs more entrenching.
- Location
- In here, not out there.
Not necessarily, at least for air support. Land based aircraft have pretty good range, depending on flight characteristics, local conditions, and the aircraft in question. Artillery, though. That will definitely limit your options.
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I guess, to elaborate more on the nature of the problem, these are the constraints I've set myself:
3 BB
2 AV
2 CVL
9 CA
9 CL
17 DD
And my attempt at organizing it into a mostly offensive-oriented fleet wound up looking like this:
1 x [3 BB]
1 x [3 CA]
2 x [1 CVL, 1 DD]
1 x [2 AV]
3 x [2 CL, 3 DD]
3 x [2 CA, 1 CL, 2 DD]
The idea is to have a set of smaller squads that could unite with the heavy-hitters into a proper fleet for big assaults and then act more-or-less independently the rest of the time, but based off your comments, I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to merge the last two groups by default, or just go back to the drawing board altogether?
(Embarrassing to admit to having had such a bad idea, but I'll take it as a learning opportunity.)
3 BB
2 AV
2 CVL
9 CA
9 CL
17 DD
And my attempt at organizing it into a mostly offensive-oriented fleet wound up looking like this:
1 x [3 BB]
1 x [3 CA]
2 x [1 CVL, 1 DD]
1 x [2 AV]
3 x [2 CL, 3 DD]
3 x [2 CA, 1 CL, 2 DD]
The idea is to have a set of smaller squads that could unite with the heavy-hitters into a proper fleet for big assaults and then act more-or-less independently the rest of the time, but based off your comments, I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to merge the last two groups by default, or just go back to the drawing board altogether?
(Embarrassing to admit to having had such a bad idea, but I'll take it as a learning opportunity.)
CV12Hornet
Riter.
- Location
- Tacoma, Washington
If you're planning to lure away and attack smaller ships in a general fleet action, you'd want to drop the heavy cruisers and add more CLs/DDs. 8" guns proved time and again to be less than ideal, at best, for swatting destroyers. Guadalcanal, USS Edsall, Leyte Gulf, Barents Sea...
Honestly, this isn't a bad idea on its own. It's actually a good idea to have dedicated cruiser groups for those small surface actions that make up the bulk of big-gun naval warfare, and then they can be attached to the battle fleet or carrier groups in larger fleet actions.
- Location
- Barcelona, Catalunya, EU (for now)
You fail at the DD/heavy hitters ratio. Specially, too many CAs. You need less of those, and more DDs. One CA removed should mean 2 DDs added.
Ideally, you can divide the DDs in 4/4/4/5 groups, and then add ships from other classes to each task force. Otherwise, you risk getting unprotected capital ships. If one of the CAs is actually Maya Kai2, that would help in the AA department. But it won't help with the antisub problem. That could make a task force with only 2 DDs devoted to ASW, but then the rest of the fleet has to stay close around Maya.
Similarly, for example, if one or more of the CAs are remodeled Mogami-class, then they are Aviation Cruisers (CAV), which could add fighter patrols, and improve AA capabilities. I'm also assuming that most of the CVL space will be devoted to offensive capacities (torp and dive bombers), rather than trying to go for an air superiority configuration.
You could make five groups with 4/4/4/3/2 DDs. But if you cannot add or remove ships, that will be the limit of how can you divide those ships.
Ideally, you can divide the DDs in 4/4/4/5 groups, and then add ships from other classes to each task force. Otherwise, you risk getting unprotected capital ships. If one of the CAs is actually Maya Kai2, that would help in the AA department. But it won't help with the antisub problem. That could make a task force with only 2 DDs devoted to ASW, but then the rest of the fleet has to stay close around Maya.
Similarly, for example, if one or more of the CAs are remodeled Mogami-class, then they are Aviation Cruisers (CAV), which could add fighter patrols, and improve AA capabilities. I'm also assuming that most of the CVL space will be devoted to offensive capacities (torp and dive bombers), rather than trying to go for an air superiority configuration.
You could make five groups with 4/4/4/3/2 DDs. But if you cannot add or remove ships, that will be the limit of how can you divide those ships.
Last edited:
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Alright, so I at least had the right idea with that. That's good to know. I guess the devil is in the details...
Yep, I have two Mogamis in there, though only one is Kai2. No Maya, though. And I think I would be able to actually remove two CAs from the overall composition and add four DDs, giving me this to work with:
3 BB
2 AV
2 CVL
1 CAV
6 CA
9 CL
21 DD
Past this, I can't really make any changes. I'm sure it's still not great, but hopefully the ratio is at least something of an improvement.
Alright, that makes sense. With that in mind, it may make more sense for me to go with something along these lines:
1 x [3 BB]
1 x [2 AV, 1 CL]
2 x [1 CVL]
2 x [2 CA]
1 x [1 CAV, 2 CL, 5 DD]
2 x [1 CA, 2 CL, 5 DD]
1 x [1 CL, 6 DD]
The bottom-most group wouldn't actually go out on their own, instead being attached to whichever set of capital ships* are currently sortieing, while giving three groups of faster hit-and-runners that would still be fairly safe from ambush by subs or aircraft. Does this sound better?
*Wondering if I want to mix in the BBs with the CVLs and AVs as well in this case, for consistency of forces, but it may be better to maintain the specialization. Not sure on that, really. Any advice?
Last edited:
ColdGoldLazarus
Contrary Quester, Spreadsheet Queen, Pink Flamingo
- Location
- Challenger Deep
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Where did you find this?When did Tenryuu become so BADASS?!?! `
LGear
Secret Society BLANKET
ARBITRACOM
Sic transit gloria mundi
The raws for the movie are out on unofficial sources. I may do another longpost about the movie soon.