|
Post by aeson on Oct 29, 2020 14:32:27 GMT -6
Oh, I assumed we were talking about the real Washington Treaty, in which cheating by non-liberal democracies was, I suspect, not a sub-clause. It wasn't a sub-clause, but it was a historical fact and the game rule that allows non-liberal democracies to cheat on treaty limits is meant to reflect that rather than to imply that for some reason British, French, and American diplomats are idiots who agreed to accept a 10,000t limit on their own construction and an 11,000t limit on everyone else's construction.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 29, 2020 14:57:51 GMT -6
Adseria - that's historically accurate. 'Lord Nelson' class were completed after 'Dreadnought' - in fact their 12" guns were stolen and put in 'Dreadnought'. Yeah, I always struggle with what to call an all-big-gun ship if not dreadnought. Fisher had his issues but the man could turn a phrase. It almost sounds like a naval version of Who's On First - the Dreadnought is a semi-Dreadnought while the slow-but-implacable Implacable is a dreadnought but not Dreadnought. It is definitely a 'sign of the times' that the Naval Treaties did not provide for penalties if broken. Part of that 'We're all Gentlemen Here' sort of thing I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 30, 2020 1:55:33 GMT -6
Adseria - that's historically accurate. 'Lord Nelson' class were completed after 'Dreadnought' - in fact their 12" guns were stolen and put in 'Dreadnought'. Yeah, I always struggle with what to call an all-big-gun ship if not dreadnought. Fisher had his issues but the man could turn a phrase. It almost sounds like a naval version of Who's On First - the Dreadnought is a semi-Dreadnought while the slow-but-implacable Implacable is a dreadnought but not Dreadnought. It is definitely a 'sign of the times' that the Naval Treaties did not provide for penalties if broken. Part of that 'We're all Gentlemen Here' sort of thing I suppose. Yes, I know about the Lord Nelsons. My point was simply that a pre-dreadnought, built in the age of the dreadnought, called "Dreadnought" is an amusing coincidence. Oh, I assumed we were talking about the real Washington Treaty, in which cheating by non-liberal democracies was, I suspect, not a sub-clause. It wasn't a sub-clause, but it was a historical fact and the game rule that allows non-liberal democracies to cheat on treaty limits is meant to reflect that rather than to imply that for some reason British, French, and American diplomats are idiots who agreed to accept a 10,000t limit on their own construction and an 11,000t limit on everyone else's construction. I don't care whether it's a game rule or not. The point is, the real Washington Naval Treaty did not have a sub-clause legalising cheating on the treaty. Thus, any cruiser over 10,000t, and/or with guns bigger than 8", is not a treaty cruiser, no matter how much their governments insist it is.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 30, 2020 3:03:44 GMT -6
You know, I'm not sure I trust this latest report from the intelligence division.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 11:36:17 GMT -6
You know, I'm not sure I trust this latest report from the intelligence division. View AttachmentAnd pistols as secondaries...
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 30, 2020 12:16:04 GMT -6
You know, I'm not sure I trust this latest report from the intelligence division. View AttachmentAnd pistols as secondaries... Hey, don't knock pistols! A lucky hit on the enemy admiral could make all the difference
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 31, 2020 0:39:48 GMT -6
You know, I'm not sure I trust this latest report from the intelligence division. View AttachmentI don't know what you're talking about, clearly they're letting you know that the ship carries a single main gun. See: 1 in main guns.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 31, 2020 8:14:38 GMT -6
I don't care whether it's a game rule or not. The point is, the real Washington Naval Treaty did not have a sub-clause legalising cheating on the treaty. Thus, any cruiser over 10,000t, and/or with guns bigger than 8", is not a treaty cruiser, no matter how much their governments insist it is. They still had to have plausible deniability: you're not going to be able to build a Yamato and say "it's a treaty cruiser, honest!", but with Takao the enemy can't be sure that their spies don't have the dimensions, hull form, or equipment list wrong, so they can't be sure the ship is over displacement.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 31, 2020 9:37:13 GMT -6
I don't care whether it's a game rule or not. The point is, the real Washington Naval Treaty did not have a sub-clause legalising cheating on the treaty. Thus, any cruiser over 10,000t, and/or with guns bigger than 8", is not a treaty cruiser, no matter how much their governments insist it is. They still had to have plausible deniability: you're not going to be able to build a Yamato and say "it's a treaty cruiser, honest!", but with Takao the enemy can't be sure that their spies don't have the dimensions, hull form, or equipment list wrong, so they can't be sure the ship is over displacement. Well, technically, you could claim Yamato was a treaty cruiser. The hard part is getting people to believe you. On a more serious note, it doesn't matter whether other nations are aware that it doesn't comply with the treaty; it doesn't, which means it's not a treaty cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Nov 3, 2020 5:47:21 GMT -6
Just noticed my current monthly balance. Should I be worried?
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Nov 3, 2020 9:07:11 GMT -6
I think the Imperator Alexandr I Might have been a little lost. EDIT: Realised you might want more context; she had 2 destroyers as "escorts" which were several nautical miles to the east, and heading away. My cruiser squadron is just off-screen to the west, heading this way. The battle ended because of no contact.
|
|
|
Post by andrewm on Nov 3, 2020 9:51:39 GMT -6
Remember the Yamato was sold as being a close to a treaty Battleship or close to it with 16 inch guns and a much smaller displacement and allied intellegence was not sure of her full armament for some time as late as 1944 they were estiamted at 40-57000 tons and 9 16 inch guns rather smaller than their actual size.
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Nov 4, 2020 6:52:02 GMT -6
Also, did the forum just break?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 4, 2020 12:11:15 GMT -6
Quite sturdy cruiser in 1946. Before she sunk, she received 53 medium shells (5" and 6" in ratio about 1:1) with distance that her armour could not help so much and another 8 hits from 4" shells and 1 torpedo. Similar British 9200 tons cruiser on my side sunk just after 1 torpedo hit and 1 non-penetrating belt hit of 5" shell.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 7, 2020 7:07:48 GMT -6
Last 20 shells .... Not happen to often but it nice to see diving shells brings some fruit. EDIT: it was 6" shell
|
|