|
Post by seawolf on Aug 11, 2022 1:49:29 GMT -6
Battlecruiser has a pretty simple definition "a large heavily armed warship that is lighter, faster, and more maneuverable than a battleship" Is it reasonable to have a debate over whether Alaska/Dunkerque/1047/Kronshdadt/B-65 are better classified as large cruisers or whatever? Sure. But it's pedantic to try and argue that they don't meet that basic definition when compared to the very widely accepted category of fast battleship
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 11, 2022 10:39:23 GMT -6
What are you blathering about now? The Pensacola class? They were classed as *Light* Cruisers until the LNT defined the Heavy Cruiser as being armed with larger than 6.1" guns. The fact that the US chose to reuse the Armoured Cruiser 'CA' designation to refer to Heavy Cruisers doesn't make a ship a different classification. ... Let keep things civil wlbjork ... disagreements & counter-points are perfectly fine & expected, but you are getting close to personal attack territory with the above. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Aug 11, 2022 21:31:05 GMT -6
wlbjork - thank you for your thoughtful and substantive discussion. Please re-read my post as it is based on careful analysis and, however much it may contravene your opinions, is free of 'blather'. No, I disagree - as I just explained above. There is nothing uniquely classifiable as a battlecruiser after Renown and Repulse are built. You could actually pick a ship and try the exercise for yourself. I do, it's easy. HMS Hood: Reduced secondary armament (calibre and quantity), reduced armour (conning tower, main battery turrets etc.) and removed armour (secondary casemates replaced with 0.25" splinter shields, no lower belt etc.) - all examples of carefully shaving away a ton here and another ton there to free displacement for engines. USS Iowa: Reduced primary armament (1 turret less) than planned for first completely treaty-free battleship class, the Montanas (all scrapped before completion), reduced armour (main belt) to free up tonnage for speed increase. No doubt a few other changes as well. Sorry that you think me asking you "What are you blathering (talking) about" is an insult/bad language. However, to claim that 6.1"+ armed Cruisers of *any* nation were called Armoured Cruisers post WNT is very easily demonstrated to be false. UK: Hawkins class - 'Enhanced Light Cruiser' France: Duquesne class - 'Light Cruiser' Italy: Trento class - not found this one, but as intended to combat the French Duquesne class 'Light Cruiser' seems very likely Japan: Furutaka class - 'Scout Cruiser' Together with the US Pensacola class already mentioned, all got re-designated as 'Heavy Cruiser' types once the LNT had been resolved. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkSY_ALpBQQThere are 3 (as built) and 4, maybe 5 (considering unbuilt ships), distinct generations of Battlecruiser prior to the Alaska class. The Alaska class would very easily fit into the first generation. A heavily armed (9*12" guns), fast ship (33kn) designed to hunt down and kill enemy Cruisers. The Brooklyn class don't because they are Treaty ships, and the Treaty rules are that Cruisers are 10,000t or less (Brooklyn class being 9,767t); if the guns are 6.1" or smaller (check) then the ships are Light Cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 11, 2022 23:56:55 GMT -6
What I've looked for in this thread, and not found a concrete answer to is why the U.S. Navy decided opted to classify them as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. It may not matter (as several posts have stated), but it is interesting that they opted to create a new designation rather than going with an existing one (even if only used for a class of ships eventually cancelled).
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Aug 12, 2022 0:00:57 GMT -6
I'm thinking of starting a thread called "What Is An Alaska, Anyway?" If we put it all in one place, maybe every third thread won't devolve into that conversation.
😁
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on Aug 12, 2022 0:34:02 GMT -6
There was an interesting video on youtube about it by Drachinifel where he goes through the definition of the battlecruiser, the design and purpose of the Alaska and concludes it is not a BC just a scaled up cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 12, 2022 9:39:09 GMT -6
We are getting far off-topic here with the battlecruiser/Alaska conversation - lets stick to subjects concerning RTW3 specifically, please.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 13, 2022 14:04:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by javelin285 on Aug 14, 2022 11:58:17 GMT -6
What I've looked for in this thread, and not found a concrete answer to is why the U.S. Navy decided opted to classify them as "large cruisers" rather than battlecruisers. It may not matter (as several posts have stated), but it is interesting that they opted to create a new designation rather than going with an existing one (even if only used for a class of ships eventually cancelled). A good place to start is watching Drachinifels video on them on to YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by javelin285 on Aug 14, 2022 12:00:35 GMT -6
We are getting far off-topic here with the battlecruiser/Alaska conversation - lets stick to subjects concerning RTW3 specifically, please. Thanks. Are we still on for October area lunch?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 14, 2022 15:52:16 GMT -6
We are getting far off-topic here with the battlecruiser/Alaska conversation - lets stick to subjects concerning RTW3 specifically, please. Thanks. Are we still on for October area lunch? Please see this announcement: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/6535/concerning-expansion-operationsMore info will be posted when things get more solidified.
|
|
|
Post by javelin285 on Aug 14, 2022 19:35:00 GMT -6
Thank you Will! We appreciate you!
|
|
|
Post by lexlaxlove on Aug 18, 2022 13:53:22 GMT -6
Is there a good list of confirmed features for RTW3 anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Aug 18, 2022 16:53:12 GMT -6
Is there a good list of confirmed features for RTW3 anywhere? The NWS team are currently in negotiations with an undisclosed company. When the negotiations are complete, they'll make a joint announcement, and I've just been told ( Here) that that will include more details about what RTW3 will include. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure everything in the RTW2 Expansion Catalog will be included as a baseline.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 18, 2022 20:24:18 GMT -6
Is there a good list of confirmed features for RTW3 anywhere? The NWS team are currently in negotiations with an undisclosed company. When the negotiations are complete, they'll make a joint announcement, and I've just been told ( Here) that that will include more details about what RTW3 will include. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure everything in the RTW2 Expansion Catalog will be included as a baseline. Yes...RTW3 will of course include everything in the Expansion Catalog, and indeed 'even more stuff' ©
|
|