Hey don't forget the Phalanx guns and the NUCLEAR SHELLS for her main guns. They tried to put Sea Sparrow SAMs on too in the 80s but the shock from the main guns was apparently too much for the available launchers. Too bad as that would've significantly improved their air defense capability.
The Littorio's 381mm guns had a (theorical) maximum range comparable to Yamato's 460mm guns, but they also had a short service life and were pretty innacurate at long range firing (quite a problem since battleships are supposed to outrange their opponents) due excessive shot dispersion.
Well she did survive till today however seeing that Kancolle is a WW2 game, i think the developers would keep the Iowa class just to their world war 2 era configurations. Like how Yukikaze survived the war but you don't see Tan Yang in the game yet
When I'm thinking about Kongou's last line....I wonder...if everything just made up, and when we log off, kanmusus and abyssals go to bar and drinking sake together after work done
Well she did survive till today however seeing that Kancolle is a WW2 game, i think the developers would keep the Iowa class just to their world war 2 era configurations. Like how Yukikaze survived the war but you don't see Tan Yang in the game
Ever feel like the Kai-2 update candidates are also decided by the RNGoddess ?
When I'm thinking about Kongou's last line....I wonder...if everything just made up, and when we log off, kanmusus and abyssals go to bar and drinking sake together after work done
That could be case but if you have too OP of a fleet that you will get fed up of playing the game very fast
There is still another American Battleship that anyone who Dabbled in ww2 history should know, But I don't think she would get along with Kaga and Akagi.
Since each ship in the game so far has some kind of fault, did any of the Allied ships have any faults in design, equipment, or whatnot? That may balance them to be game candidates.
There is still another American Battleship that anyone who Dabbled in ww2 history should know, But I don't think she would get along with Kaga and Akagi.
Let me guess, it is the one that lies at the bottom of Pearl Harbour in front of the Mighty Mo and her name starts with A?
Since each ship in the game so far has some kind of fault, did any of the Allied ships have any faults in design, equipment, or whatnot? That may balance them to be game candidates.
Their torpedoes were pretty terrible early on, and they couldn't fathom the range Long Lances had, thinking IJN submarines had breached their lines when they got torp'd
But other than that, if we had a USN DD, I'd predict her FP to be near Ayanami or even Yuudachi-tier. AA near Akizuki-tier
Since each ship in the game so far has some kind of fault, did any of the Allied ships have any faults in design, equipment, or whatnot? That may balance them to be game candidates.
Of course they did, but Allied/American ships were relatively modernized so they had fewer (but not zero) issues. (American carriers lacking an armored flight deck being an obvious fault)
Of course they did, but Allied/American ships were relatively modernized so they had fewer (but not zero) issues. (American carriers lacking an armored flight deck being an obvious fault)
I thought not having an armored flight deck was an advantage, allowing Yorktown and the like to be repaired quickly and weather through storms without being peeled like a tin of sardines.
Or just go with the Pokemon Style when obtaining USN Ships, encounter one, fight her, defeat her, don't let her escape then she joins your fleet with no ship sunk.
Mileavis said:
But other than that, if we had a USN DD, I'd predict her FP to be near Ayanami or even Yuudachi-tier. AA near Akizuki-tier
The Sims-class would probably be like the Mutsuki-class, low performance but low resource consumption, perfect for expeditions. The Benson-class doesn't boast a good speed and firepower compare to the Fubuki-class but quite superior in terms survivability. The Gleaves-class will be pretty balance which can be par with the Asashio-class and the Kagerou-class. And the Fletcher-class, they had superior ASW and AA stats but has an average firepower, though they cannot be underestimated especially ships like Nicholas, Radford, O'Bannon, Johnston and Heermann.
Though the ship's stats still varies depending of their performance.
Or just go with the Pokemon Style when obtaining USN Ships, encounter one, fight her, defeat her, don't let her escape then she joins your fleet with no ship sunk. ...
And to get her, you must have at least one open slot in your line-up! So you're effectively one ship down!
I thought not having an armored flight deck was an advantage, allowing Yorktown and the like to be repaired quickly and weather through storms without being peeled like a tin of sardines.
Well it did allow carriers to carry more planes and it was easier to build bigger carriers but do not expect them to survive bomb attacks just ask Lady Lex, Yorktown, Franklin and the Grey Ghost (all carriers but the last sank to bombs)
I thought not having an armored flight deck was an advantage, allowing Yorktown and the like to be repaired quickly and weather through storms without being peeled like a tin of sardines.
It was, but like all things in life, it was a trade-off.
Armored flight decks were REALLY handy against bomb strikes and kamikaze attacks (one direct hit practically knocked the whole ship out of commission), but they -severely- increased the ship's tonnage and (like you said) took longer to repair.
Well it did allow carriers to carry more planes and it was easier to build bigger carriers but do not expect them to survive bomb attacks just ask Lady Lex, Yorktown, Franklin and the Grey Ghost (all carriers but the last sank to bombs)
Franklin did not sink. She was put out of action, but she remained until 1966 before being scrapped.
Yorktown sank from torpedoes from an Japanese submarine.
Lexington from a mix of torpedoes and bombs. She was scuttled by torpedoes.
Hornet was scuttled by Japanese destroyers.
Wasp was sunk by a submarine.
Princeton (the only light carrier the US lost and the only non-escort carrier lost after 1942) was scuttled by torpedoes.
No US aircraft carrier was sunk by diving bombing alone. (not looking at the escort carriers at this time).
It was, but like all things in life, it was a trade-off.
Armored flight decks were REALLY handy against bomb strikes and kamikaze attacks (one direct hit practically knocked the whole ship out of commission), but they -severely- increased the ship's tonnage and (like you said) took longer to repair.
Fair points, but the authors (and editor) included a LOT of caveats to the point that it doesn't come to a logical conclusion.
For one: In the updated version, the author points out the fact that (part of) the decision was based on the belief that they would take action in the Mediterranean Sea (which they did), but then contrasts it with the action in the Pacific. Comparing the pressure the Italian/German air forces put on the RN in the Mediterranean, compared to the pressure the IJN put on the USN in the build up to the invasion of the Japanese home islands, is a blatantly unfair comparison.
The Littorio's 381mm guns had a (theorical) maximum range comparable to Yamato's 460mm guns, but they also had a short service life and were pretty innacurate at long range firing (quite a problem since battleships are supposed to outrange their opponents) due excessive shot dispersion.
This was partly due to the uneven quality of the shells, which had an excessive tolerance (as per the contract's clauses) when built (as much as 1%). This meant that, even a 1 kg variance could cause deviations of as much as 160 meters at a distance of 27'000 meters.
This was sometimes corrected by the fire directors, which tried to use similar shells for each salvo. So, in some circumstances these battleships fired quite well, and their salvoes were not as wide as normall thought.
Well its not like they had a lot of battleships after 1919. The "pocket battleships" are actually armored cruisers by German records even though they were built to replace the old pre-dreadnought battleships in some respects to treaties.
And two those old girls did fight in the war. Older than even Kongo.
Well its not like they had a lot of battleships after 1919. The "pocket battleships" are actually armored cruisers by German records even though they were built to replace the old pre-dreadnought battleships in some respects to treaties.
And two those old girls did fight in the war. Older than even Kongo.
I know, but could they actually be considered battleships? A good heavy cruiser could probably deal with one of them.
They did fight, but in largely secondary roles; they couldn't even fight on an even basis against the old Baltic Fleet battleships!
Fair points, but the authors (and editor) included a LOT of caveats to the point that it doesn't come to a logical conclusion.
For one: In the updated version, the author points out the fact that (part of) the decision was based on the belief that they would take action in the Mediterranean Sea (which they did), but then contrasts it with the action in the Pacific. Comparing the pressure the Italian/German air forces put on the RN in the Mediterranean, compared to the pressure the IJN put on the USN in the build up to the invasion of the Japanese home islands, is a blatantly unfair comparison.
Armored Carriers
No it's not, like at all, in fact the pressure on the US was stronger because the Japanese air arm was grossly superior to the Germans and Italian whose anti-shipping aircraft were largely under air-force control devote a half-heated and half-assed effort to the issue at best. The fact they did as much damage as is they did should be considered a major stain on the RN. The British ships would've gotten destroyed if you replaced the far to thin and largely under-trained anti-shipping units in the Med with the crack 1940 era Japanese Naval Air Forces. Just see Renown and PoW for an example of that, or the Indian ocean for that matter. The fact the British thought those ships could operate at ALL without carrier air is probably a fairly ringing endorsement of how badly the general incompetence of the Italian and German air forces in anti-shipping operations early in the war had poisoned the British mindset.
The British AA defenses were weak, even the British largely admitted this considering basically ever USN AA weapon superior and the design of most USN ships for AA defense better as well, and they then compounded this with armored carriers with small air groups carrying completely inadequate fighters. It kind of says something when the largely 'adequate' Wildcats are considered a massive upgrade over what you had previously.
If the armored carriers were in the pacific early war it would've been a disaster. Their anemic air groups and outdated aircraft would've been torn to shreds and the ships sunk because the Japanese weren't killing US CV with bombs, they were using torpedoes and with all that armor high up on the ship armored carriers were uniquely qualified to capsize quickly. Britain is DAMN lucky none of them was ever seriously torpedoed IMO. The fact is simple not a single US carrier during the critical phase where the war was actually in the balance would've been saved by an armored deck.
Lexington was lost to leakage of fumes from a torpedo, in any case she was making 25 knots and recovering planes when the explosion occurred so the bomb damage hadn't even really effected her operational status.
All the fatal damage to Yorktown was really from torpedoes
Wasp was only hit by torpedoes
Again the fatal damage to Hornet was all from torpedoes
After this though the US CV in 1943 and most of 1944 proved largely immune to damage, thick CAPs and heavy AA screens slaughtered conventional air attacks. A handful took minor hits, but nothing even close to threatening the ship. At the same time the massive air wings smothered everything near them with each Essex (with a 90-100 plane group) being worth close to two armored carriers (with a 55-60, at best, plane group) in striking power. Oh another aspect often ignored was that because the armored carrier was designed for a small air group and needed to slash weight it's stores of fuel and bombs was light by US standards, so once it's air groups inflated by deck parks and cramming it's ability to support this wing for long was limited.
Frankly during this time period the Armored Carrier was looking like a complete boondoggle and indeed the last planed British CV of the period the Malta looked an awful lot like an Essex and dispensed with the armored box. The British should really be kissing the Japanese for coming up the Kamikaze because here FINALLY was a means of attack where the armored carrier actually had some worth, a level of worth that's often overblown (many US CV were hit by kamikaze and not put out of action, there were really only two incidents of critical damage during the war and one of those (Franklin) was actually from SAP bombs that a British armored deck might or might not have defeated NOT a kamikaze)
The simple fact is if you remove the kamikaze the armored box on British CV looks like a pretty crap trade off all around. Certainly the side armor against shell fire is completely indefensible and an utter waste of tonnage. The ideal configuration would've probably been an Essex with a thin say 20mm or so STS deck to defeat HE weapons and deflect kamikazes, such a scheme was in fact studied, but it would've slightly reduced air group and was decided against. With perfect hindsight that probably would've been worth it, but it's just that hindsight.
Mileavis said:
Their torpedoes were pretty terrible early on, and they couldn't fathom the range Long Lances had, thinking IJN submarines had breached their lines when they got torp'd
But other than that, if we had a USN DD, I'd predict her FP to be near Ayanami or even Yuudachi-tier. AA near Akizuki-tier
Thing was it wasn't the load out it was the weapon, and not even the weapons performance really, but rather it's defects. If it had worked as designed the Mark 14/15 were basically equivalent to any other navies torpedoes besides the Long Lance. That fact is often kind of lost in the shuffle I find, namely that a working Mark 14/15 was roughly equivalent in performance to basically every other naval torpedo in use, but the USN had the misfortune to be fighting the one nation it wasn't equivalent too. This was also why the USN for quite awhile underestimated the Type 93 because they knew that and assumed Japanese torpedoes should be roughly equivalent too.
It seems unlikely that Kancolle would model the early war defects (Suisei aren't constantly falling out of the sky because Japan can't into liquid cooled engines for instance) so this would be largely moot. As it was the US DDs had more tubes then basically any foreign designs besides Japanese ships (if you include reloads) some pre-war ships having up to sixteen tubes with ten being standard during the war, but the torpedo itself wasn't outstanding. This would be rather like penalizing Japanese ships in firepower because they had shitastic shells though (which they did, the diving shell concept was a horrible one that badly reduced effectiveness)
The irony is the USN had a torpedo second only to the Type 93 that was nearly ready for production in late 1941, but they decided not to retool the factory and to focus on massing what they had in anticipation of the looming war. That better model was restarted toward the end of the war as the capability of enemy torpedoes finally became known, but by then there wasn't a hell of allot left to torpedo and none of the 450 units completed was issued. The Mark 17 could reach about 16.5km at 46 knots (presumably further at a lower speed setting) using a new peroxide based fuel if it HAD been issued it would've largely evened out torpedo capabilities, and of course Kancolle is riddled with experimental equipment that was never actually used so...
Lunatic6 said: The Sims-class would probably be like the Mutsuki-class, low performance but low resource consumption, perfect for expeditions.
Haha, no.
All of the late 30s US DD would be roughly equivalent to the Hatsuharu and Shiratsuyu. This is no shock given they were built at the same time within the same limits. They all basically crammed four to five 5/38 guns aboard and varying arrangements of between eight and sixteen(!) torpedo tubes combined with high speeds, some managing over 40 knots at trial displacement.
The equivalents of the Mutsuki would be the swarm of old Four Pipers, these weren't quite as good as the former, but they were fairly close. A few of the more famous ones might be worth adding as expedition mules way, WAY down the line but overall they'd be pretty marginal just like the Mutsuki are.
The Benson-class doesn't boast a good speed and firepower compare to the Fubuki-class but quite superior in terms survivability. The Gleaves-class will be pretty balance which can be par with the Asashio-class and the Kagerou-class.
The Benson is basically the exact same ship as the Gleaves just built at a different yard with different suppliers, both are actually somewhat faster then the Japanese DDs having about the same HP but weighing less. The firepower is also deceptive as the 5/38 had almost twice the effective fire rate of the 5/50 with a shell of basically the same size (slightly larger burster actually), but slightly less range. Within effective range it's gun power is actually superior to any Japanese DD based on that rate of fire, that gun is also a true DP weapon meaning it's AA firepower it massively superior to any Japanese DD bar Akizuki (though arguably still better due a superior fire control system, Mk.37 craps all over even the fantasy installations in Kancolle). It carried one more torpedo tube that Fubuki and most of those had lost all but one reload by the outbreak of war as weight savings (12 torpedoes on board) so torpedo power is roughly equal (assuming the Benson gets to mount better later war torpedoes), the later special DDs retained full torpedo reloads though and so had 16 aboard and should have thus have a somewhat higher torp stat.
And the Fletcher-class, they had superior ASW and AA stats but has an average firepower,
Thanks to the much higher rate of fire the Fletcher outguns any Japanese DD ever built by a wide margin at common battle ranges. Really Fletcher would be equal to superior in just about every single aspect besides total torpedoes aboard to any Japanese DD if given the Mark 17. The Sumner class ships crap all over everything, in terms of AA I'd take one of them over Akizuki and their shells were still full sized five inch weapons and they retained a full ten tube torpedo battery, and double rudders made them much more agile then older ships. They were a bit slow due to the added weight on a similiar hull to earlier ships, but only about as slow as Akizuki and still viable.
That said this is really only the case with the USN, the USN and Japan built DDs that were pretty much leaps and bounds above anyone else, nothing else actually used in the war in any numbers even came close to these two in well rounded general purpose designs. The British DD were a hodgepodge, but even the best ones were only maybe equal to a Gleave or Shiratsuyu on balance. France built a few huge and fast DD, but these had almost no AA capability. German DDs were in someways similiar but not that fast, very short ranged, and badly handling due to cramming too much on a small hull. Italy never had any outstanding DD designs and most of the Russia ships were fairly hopeless unimpressive and lacking even DP weapons. The Dutch DD by the time of the war were all older and basically equivalent to Mutsuki.
Now that I think about it, the Iowa class's mid-80's refit makes about as much sense as a Knight in Shining Armor getting on his trusty steed and charging into battle with a lance and an assault rifle.
Now that I think about it, the Iowa class's mid-80's refit makes about as much sense as a Knight in Shining Armor getting on his trusty steed and charging into battle with a lance and an assault rifle.
This Knight has Tomahawks and drones for gunnery spotting.
She's coming. The Mk.7 has been added to the game.
Yes. All my Yes.
My guess is they'll more or less give her only the WWII-era vintage gears. Drone spotter and Tomahawk cruise missiles is a bit OP, even if we were to pit her up against Re-class.
My guess is they'll more or less give her only the WWII-era vintage gears. Drone spotter and Tomahawk cruise missiles is a bit OP, even if we were to pit her up against Re-class.
They're also developing a radar activated artillery spotting FCS with the gun so it can only go up from here.
She's coming. The Mk.7 has been added to the game.
I'd personally be more excited to have the USS Washington added.
-Stupidly high luck from never taking a single casualty to enemy fire. -Dangerous in night battles. -Strong AA. -Powerful guns. -Interesting Relationship with the Kongou sisters
USS Phoenix would also be interesing, as she was present at Pearl Harbor, taking only a couple bullets from strafing but no casualties, and only suffered a near miss which caused two casualties on board later in her career. She saw every major battle, including the Battle of Surigao Straight.
poil333 said: USS Phoenix would also be interesing, as she was present at Pearl Harbor, taking only a couple bullets from strafing but no casualties, and only suffered a near miss which caused two casualties on board later in her career. She saw every major battle, including the Battle of Surigao Straight.
Well that and the fact that she end up serving in Argentinian Navy...till she got sunk by British nuclear sub...using WW2 torpedo. LOL.
Well that and the fact that she end up serving in Argentinian Navy...till she got sunk by British nuclear sub...using WW2 torpedo. LOL.
I barely consider that to be same vessel. Perhaps in steel it was, but in spirit Phoenix's soul refused to leave the US for a nation with a quasi-fascist government. My personal explanation for why her famous luck failed.
The Littorio's 381mm guns had a (theorical) maximum range comparable to Yamato's 460mm guns, but they also had a short service life and were pretty innacurate at long range firing (quite a problem since battleships are supposed to outrange their opponents) due excessive shot dispersion.
To outrange a Battleship's main guns was wishful thinking at best. The reality of WWII was that a range in excess of 30.000m was pretty useless. Hits at more than 20.000m were a matter of luck, and the battleship's guns can hit consistently only at less than 16,000m. IE, in the battle of Denmark Strait, the Prince of Wales opened fire at 24.300m (missing the Bismark of amazingly 1500m), and hit the Bismark with its 6th (19.340m), 9th (16.690m) and 13th(14.770m) salvos (then missing all the others till the 21th and last). The Bismark opened fire only at 20.000m and hit the Hood with its 5th(15.700m)salvo, then hit the PoW with its 8th (15.300m), 9th (15.300m) and 10th (15.500m) salvos (then missing the last three, when the distance increased and the ship begun to maneuver for a torpedo alarm). The Hood fired 10 salvos, from 22.500 to 14.000m, on the Prinz Eugen, with no hits at all.
Finally, the "excessive shot dispersion" of the Italian 381s is one of those thing that become true on internet due to the fact that many repeat it. In reality, in tests, the dispersion of the Littorio Class guns was on par, or only marginally worse, than that of the most accurate battleships of its time (around 2% of the range at +20.000m compared with the 1.9% of the Iowa for example), thats an exceptional result, given that the projectile with the flatter trajectory should have a greater orizontal dispersion for purely geometrical reasons. Its true that they had a reduced barrel life (around 1/2 than slower firing guns), but which WWII Battelship came close to shot 140 shells for gun? Besides, the Littorios were equipped for the fast barrel change.
Hey don't forget the Phalanx guns and the NUCLEAR SHELLS for her main guns. They tried to put Sea Sparrow SAMs on too in the 80s but the shock from the main guns was apparently too much for the available launchers. Too bad as that would've significantly improved their air defense capability.
Also they tried to computerize New Jersey's Main guns but apparently the computers couldn't accurately hit a target. So to our USNF, the moral of this is if it ain't broke don't fix or spend millions/or billions trying to make it better.
Well... all nations had their Battleships implemented as of now and the only one this comic didn't get right was Vanguard.
Nope, they went for Warspite instead. (which was an excellent decision in my mind)
What? We lost?Next is France's RichelieuJoining the Axis, huh?But there are so many battleships so it's hard to remember.No no, this gun had a fast muzzle velocity. Its range was 42.8km, as much as Yamato.*sparkle*A new foreign battleship is expected to appear during spring!And later on, she fought at Indochina Allied with the British.Isn't that small compared to Yamato's 46cm?So it became a German ship?No, it fled France. Except soon after due to whatever events, it fought against the British.I'm not joining them.Huh?The nameshipsDesu!I say NO THANKS to copycats!!Fuoco!!Finally is America's Iowa.Third is England's Vanguard. She was completed in 1946.Her main armament consisted of 3 sets of 381mm in triple turrets.She's young-desu... And she also has the English-stereotype...Oh! that's great!Think about the Game Balance - Desu! We need to win some and lose some against the Abyssals.-desu.Taking Bismarck as an example, let's look the latest ships from each country.That's after the war!First is Italy's Littorio. She was renamed Italia two months before the armistice, being a battleship bearing her country's name.Huh?US Navy's last of its ultimate battleships. Built two years after Yamato. There were plans for Yamato's suicide fleet to fight against her in Okinawa.Right Oneesama!!I'll feel confident if I have her in our fleet!! What kind of equipment does she have?Quarreling? Nope~! We're best friends!She was equipped with 8 sets of Quad-Tomahawks and 4 sets of Quad-Harpoon Missiles as her final armaments...
She was struck in 1995.
She was initially stricken in 1995, but was reinstated from 1999 to 2006 to comply with Federal Legislation that required retention and maintenance of 2 Iowa-class battleships. She was struck again from the Naval Vessel Register in 2006.I will study and get complimented by the admiral-desu!France signed its armistice when the ship was 95% built. Germany:
Shleswig-Holstein Class
Scharnhorst Class
Bismarck Class
Italy:
Conte di Cavour Class
Caio Dullio Class
Littorio Class
United States:
New York Class
Nevada Class
Pennsylvania Class
New Mexico Class
Tennessee Class
North Carolina Class
South Dakota Class
Iowa Class
England:
Queen Elizabeth Class
Revenge Class (Renown Class)
Royal Sovereign Class
HMS Hood
Nelson Class
HMS Vanguard
France:
Courbet Class
Bretagne Class
Dunkerque Class
Richelieu Class
Soviet:
Gangut Class
Arkhangelsk Class
Etc...