|
Post by dorn on May 23, 2019 11:03:51 GMT -6
I think that distinction between CA a CL in game is right one.
It is based on abilities than some criterium. I do not think that historical heavy and light cruisers created artificialy by WNT is something that should be followed in RTW
And in battle distiction between heavy and light cruisers is done quite well. Quite often I get engegement where I have 1 heavy cruiser accompanied by 1-2 light cruisers or get some light cruisers for the mission and heavy cruiser is part of support force. On top of that AI build light cruisers quite well and at end of 30s starts creating heavy cruisers with 6" guns.
I think that only reason to allow more than 3" armour could be magazine box as 3" of armour protects against 6" guns only.
Of course question always is if player could build ship which will broke the system as was large light cruisers in RTW1 - AI has difficulty to counter them.
The only issue I can see that with increased tonnage of light cruisers from 8000 to 10000 tons, limit for efficient colonial cruiser is not raised from 6000 to eg. 8000 tons too.
I will note one other thing. Light cruisers build after double CL turrets are getting old quite nicely as their armour is not primary concern and savings in machinery is not so large as in the first 2 decades of the 20th century. Playing as UK with very large fleet I found that light cruisers build in early 20s are still efficient in early 40s as new light cruisers built by AI with 12-15x6" guns are heavy not light cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 12:18:03 GMT -6
So did the 18'' guns of the Yamatos. Yamatos should be classed as CLs too. So your definition of DP would then be basically any gun that can fire into the air? So let's add the Mikasa and Bismarck to the list of what you consider AA guns then? I meant that the Clevelands 6" guns were actually effective and designed to be used against aircraft. The Yamatos were neither.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on May 23, 2019 12:33:41 GMT -6
So did the 18'' guns of the Yamatos. Yamatos should be classed as CLs too. So your definition of DP would then be basically any gun that can fire into the air? So let's add the Mikasa and Bismarck to the list of what you consider AA guns then? I meant that the Clevelands 6" guns were actually effective and designed to be used against aircraft. The Yamatos were neither. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)They weren't effective, but they were consciously designed as DP guns.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 23, 2019 12:41:10 GMT -6
I meant that the Clevelands 6" guns were actually designed to be used against aircraft. Were they? The navweaps page for the 6"/47 Mark 16 used by the Cleveland class lists the mounting as having a maximum elevation of 40 degrees (later modified to 60 degrees) and a maximum loading angle of 20 degrees; the 5"/25 and 5"/38 DP guns were any-angle loading with a maximum elevation of 85 degrees, and the 6"/47 DP Mark 16 used on the Worcester class lists its maximum elevation at 78 degrees with any-angle loading. The DP guns also have considerably higher training and elevation rates. Looks to me like the 6"/47 Mark 16 wasn't designed as a DP gun; rather, it was given a shell and at some point slightly modified to allow it to be used in an AA role.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 12:43:31 GMT -6
So your definition of DP would then be... It might be a balloon popping airsoft gun for all that matters. As long as I point it upwards and press the trigger while aiming at a plane, it already qualifies as "AAA" Capable, or so it might seem judging what you qualify as a Dual Purpose mount. So yeah, whatever my definition of DP is in this thread can be a lot of very stupid things, given that your own definition includes Cleveland's 6'' triple mount as such, it would still be as valid as yours. I already mentioned in a previous post how the british were hugely unsatisfied by the inability of the 5.25'' DP mount to prosecute aerial targets given it's limits in practical reload, train and elevation speeds no matter they had the elevation range to aim up. A gun able to go up to 70 degrees, fire 12 times per minute, being able to reload at any angle, and train and traverse pretty fast was considered as a complete fail as an AAA platform. Yet here you come claiming that guns with a practical RoF of 8-10 rpm, max elevation of 40º, low angle reload only, and much slower train/elevation rates were DP mounts. Gimme a break. You're out of your mind and by this stage you're just sprouting nonsense. So if you go and do it, why shouldn't I join, just for the funzies of it?. If Clevelands had "DP 6'' guns", and "was a light cruiser because of it", then Yamato was also a light cruiser because it had 18'' triple mounts with as many properties as "DP mounts" as Cleveland's 6'' (and a much more freaking bigger AA shell to boot). Oh, Tirpitz also was a light cruiser. Her 380mm guns had an AA shell too, and she actually fired it in Norway in 1944. So they were "DP" too. That's how much effing sense you're doing to try and argue what can't be argued because it's absolutely dumb.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 23, 2019 13:05:23 GMT -6
The US Navy considered its 8"-gunned CAs and 6"-gunned CLs as equivalents, with the 8" having greater range and penetration but the 6" having a faster rate of fire. In terms of 'putting tonnage down-range' the 12x6" ships (12x100x6 = 7200) and 9x8" (9x200x4 = 7200) ships put out virtually identical weight of shell. And, as I've said, the hulls of the Brooklyns, Wichita, Clevelands and Baltimores are substantially identical. In addition, Britain looked at building more 8"-gunned cruisers and ultimately opted to build the 6"-gunned Town and Colony classes instead, using them interchangeably with 8"-gunned ships. The Leander, Arethusa, Dido, Atlanta, Capitani Romani and the French 9x6"-gunned ships are really in a different class according to use and function. RtW1 and 2 do many things exceptionally well and other things not so well. Classifying cruisers is apparently one of the latter. It isn't a deal-breaker for me, for reasons given in above posts; possibly, for alexbrunius it is. I'd rather the developers spent time fixing bugs now and adding features later instead of splitting hairs over definitions... but that's just me. ramjb - you may be irritated but please let us try not to be flippant. alexbrunius isn't wrong, he just wants the definitions to be different. Insults are uncalled for. I think we've chewed all the nutritional value out of this and I don't plan to come back to the thread. Just as a caution, if you keep up the argument the mods will get involved.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 13:17:59 GMT -6
" alexbrunius isn't wrong"
Excuse me, while he has at least room and ground to defend historical ship designations, and he maybe not "Wrong" in what regards to arguing from that standpoint, calling the triple 6'' mount aboard the Clevelands "DP" just to try and defend his point of view IS wrong, IS a fallacy and IS an invention. In every extension of every one of those three words. And the worst part is that I'm sure he is perfectly aware of it, but he keeps up bringing stupid arguments up just in order not to let the freakin thing rest.
And if I'm getting winded is because of how much and to which extent he'll go in order to falsify stuff just for the sake of coming back here when his point has been already repeatedly smashed to bits. I tend to leave this stuff alone once the horse has been beaten down to a rotten carcass, but I have serious trouble not answering to stupid things like that because, you know, someone else can come here, read that nonsense and honestly believe it. And that for me is a huge no-no.
When someone writes drivel, it's only right for others to call his drivel as such. It's not being flippant, it's just common sense.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 23, 2019 13:20:18 GMT -6
This is a warning...we do not allow personal attacks against other members on these forums, period. Debate the posters argument, do not attack the poster.
Make your argument, then your counter-points to the other points, etc...then, if you cannot agree in the end, just say so and move on. If you think someone is trolling or the like then PM me or a Beta Team member and let them know - if we agree with you then it will be dealt with. If not, again, move on.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 14:24:31 GMT -6
Yet here you come claiming that guns with a practical RoF of 8-10 rpm, max elevation of 40º, low angle reload only, and much slower train/elevation rates were DP mounts. Gimme a break. The Cleveland guns were capable of a max elevation of 60 degrees ( 78 degrees for the later upgraded version on the Worcester ) They were capable of 10 RPM which is again comparable to 12 RPM for the later upgraded versions on the Worcester Traverse speed was not of major importance for large caliber heavy AA which engaged targets at long range where their speed would not impact traverse alot. For long range AA max elevation is not very critical either since a 40 degree angle is enough to reach the altitude most planes would come in at and more to boot. For all intents and purposes the Cleveland 6" worked just fine in an AA role, and you know this. calling the triple 6'' mount aboard the Clevelands "DP" just to try and defend his point of view IS wrong, IS a fallacy and IS an invention. Tell that to all the Japanese airplanes and pilots these 6" guns shot down during WW2. I bet they will 100% agree with you that AA was not a "dual" purpose of these guns. 8" guns could not really be used against airplanes effectively, which makes Heavy and Light cruisers distinctively different. I know this and you know this yet I am shocked by how "much and to which extent you'll go in order to falsify stuff just for the sake of coming back here when your point has been already repeatedly smashed to bits".
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 23, 2019 15:39:33 GMT -6
In my opinion the game classify ships based by roles and not by hardware. The limitation in the designs are there to mimic how these ships was built and used in real life.
In game then the role of the light cruiser is mainly as scouts, trade protection and raiding.
I think that some of the bigger light cruiser that some nations built was not directly built for those purposes, they were filled a battle fleet role or as escort for either other capital ships or transports.
There was also a huge transformation from areal scouting in WW2 which was a role that the typical light cruiser performed in WW1 so there is a transition in that role from the light cruiser to carriers and sea planes. The cruisers still retained some of its use in this regard by fitting sea planes on them though.
In WW1 then a destroyer was nothing but a torpedo platform (more or less), they were so small that they could not operate on their own. In WW2 then destroyers grew to almost the size of a small light cruisers, the difference was their roles. The destroyer was not use for scouting in the sense that light cruisers had been used and they did not carry any armour. Destroyers in WW2 went through a transformation from a torpedo platform into a very capable ship in terms of AA, picket duty and most importantly ASW duty.
I think the game does this transformation quite well... you can build really big destroyers later in the war and they serve in very different roles late game than what they do in the early game. Light cruisers go through the same cycle and go from 3-5000t to about 6-10.000. Late war cruisers are more capable in its intended role which are scouting in deploying sea planes and being able to intercept and defend convoys. The Royal Navy relied heavily on typical light cruisers in the Mediterranean against the Italian to quite good effect. They had good AA capabilities as well as being able to intercept and fight enemy surface raiders and help keep a decent reconnaissance around what they protected. You needed cheap ships for this and large well armed and armoured cruisers are not that.
In my opinion the classification in the game makes perfect sense to me. It is not the exact size of the ships but the capability of said ship that set the limitations that the game give us, this also force us to make real life realistic decisions on ship design based on the knowledge at the time and remove some of the omnipotent force of the player in a more free for all system.
It does not matter what a ship was called in real life in my opinion, the design is based on role and they need to use some measure of classification to make it coherent, even if that will not always mesh 100% with all ships and how they were called, especially from the treaty cruisers that certainly made a mess out of the classification system.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 23, 2019 16:36:03 GMT -6
The question is if this is modeled in the game somehow, and if it's not maybe it should? It kinda is in the game. The ship template files get bigger as time goes on. It's not a forced evolution but that feels historical. The Spanish were able to make undersized battleships, they just were quite mediocre ships as a result. So it's effectiveness that encourages the correct outcome which feels right to me.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 16:44:26 GMT -6
The Cleveland guns were capable of a max elevation of 60 degrees ( 78 degrees for the later upgraded version on the Worcester ) They were capable of 10 RPM which is again comparable to 12 RPM for the later upgraded versions on the Worcester Traverse speed was not of major importance for large caliber heavy AA which engaged targets at long range where their speed would not impact traverse alot. For long range AA max elevation is not very critical either since a 40 degree angle is enough to reach the altitude most planes would come in at and more to boot. There he goes again. Again making absolutely ludicrous claims that make no sense. a) Worcester guns,MK16DP, beside the designation, were virtually new guns, on completely different (Twin) mounts. They were all-angle reload capable, they had automatic operation, they fired a semi-fixed set of ammo. Meanwhile the MK16 aboard Cleveland weren't all-angle reload capable, they had manual operation, they fired a conventional shell-and-charge ammo. Virtually the only thing both guns shared was the barrel. Worcester guns weren't an "upgrade". They virtually were completely different guns in operation, mechanisms, manual of operation, everything. b) Traverse and elevation speeds was the bread and butter for DP guns. "engaging targets at long range" is not the role of a DP gun, because a DP gun in AAA mode has to put a wall of explosions and watersplashes in the air up to the closest range possible. And traverse/elevation were probably the singlemost important stats on DP guns, besides reload speeds. As is proven by the british 5.25'' DP mount failure to meet expectations even when it had far better AA features than what the 6'' Mk16 triple mounts did...and as it was proven by worcester's 6'' DP guns, which were regarded as "not good enough in AA role" (the Worcester was a failed class, in case you didn't know it, because the guns and mounts weren't satisfactory enough for the job). c) Cleveland's 6'' MK16 was good for 10rpm in paper and perfect condition gun trials only. In battle they proved to be extremely fast firing for their caliber, but no, their actual practical rate of fire fell more around 8rpm. d) Cleveland's Mk.16 gun was modifiable to increase elevation to 60º. Cleveland's triple mounts were restricted to 41 degrees, however, and the idea of changing the turrets to 60º was rejected on grounds of time needed and cost at a time the US Navy needed new ships as fast as possible. And they remained that way throughout their existance. The class that had 60º elevation for those guns was the mid-war "improved" Cleveland (Fargo Class), of which only two ever existed, and no, that one didn't use their guns as AAA weapons either because 60º elevation is as useful for a DP mount as a 41º one, specially with completely innapropiate training and elevation rates, and low rate of fire for the role. From the same website you used as source about the Mk16, commenting about Worcester's Mk16DP: These guns had a long development cycle with bursts of activity followed by periods of neglect. The officers of BuOrd had high hopes for these weapons, but they were continually frustrated in finding a home for them. Work began in 1937 as the main guns for a new class of cruisers limited by treaty to 8,000 tons. This project was halted in 1940 with the failure to produce an acceptable 8,000 ton design for this cruiser. An attempt in 1940 to get them onto what became the Montana class battleships died when BuOrd's own study showed that the 5"/38 (12.7 cm) and 5"/54 (12.7 cm) designs were better choices. In 1941 the guns were revived yet again, as the introduction of new, higher performing aircraft showed a corresponding need for a higher performance AAA weapon. However, the entry of the US into World War II meant that existing ships and weapons received priority and development of the new 6" (15.2 cm) was correspondingly slowed. The design was not finalized until 1943 and USS Worcester did not commission until 1948, long after the war was over.
These guns did not prove reliable in service, possibly because of the high rate of fire and need for any-elevation loading. Another contributing cause was that they used a dual projectile hoist system - one for AP and one for HC/AA shells - which proved to be a source of jamming. And the dual-purpose performance came at a steep price in weight, with these twin turrets weighing about 20% more than the triple turrets used on the previous Cleveland class. In this regards, it should also be noted that the late-war equivalent 5"/38 (12.7 cm) armed Atlanta class AA cruisers carried the same number of guns on less than half the displacement of Worcester. In other words, two Atlantas carrying a total of 24 of the excellent 5"/38 (12.7 cm) guns could be built for less tonnage than one Worcester carrying half as many guns, albeit more powerful ones.
What wikipedia has to say about the matter: The Mark 16DP used a two-gun semi-automatic "Dual Purpose" turret, for use against both air and surface targets. They were individually sleeved to allow independent elevation. They were produced in limited numbers late in the war. The DP turret could fire more quickly and elevate and train faster compared to the "single purpose" triple turret. The Worcester-class used these mountings.[1][3] These were not entirely satisfactory, and a triple DP mounting was proposed to replace them, but was cancelled after World War II.So after reading that we know that: a)The MK16DP dual mounts (worcester) had faster traverse, elevation and rate of fire than the MK16 triple mounts (Cleveland) b) Worcester mounts had only 2 guns and weighed 25% more than Cleveland's (accounting for the extra machinery and equipment needed to get the faster traverse and elevation the mount needed, and the extra equipment to increase RoF and any-angle reloading. Which must've been a waste, because according to you neither is needed for a DP mount). c) Even then and after all that, the guns were deemed unsatisfactory, and work was directed towards a new triple DP mount. Which obviously means that Cleveland's triple turret must've been a hell of a performer, given that a dual mount with faster traverse, reload, and rate of fire was "not entirely satisfactory", and that they considered designing a completely new triple DP mount from scratch before ditching and shelving the whole idea and gun...if the Cleveland's was so good for DP roles, is strange that they didn't just go back to it . D): You're again just making drivel out of thin air that can't make less sense. No, I don't know this and you don't know it either. Clearly. No, YOU tell me, how many of those "All japanese planes and pilots the 6'' guns shot down the WW2" existed?. Give numbers - hard data, with source, of exactly how many times and in how many actions those guns were fired in AAA role, and how many planes did it shot down. Because we're about to have a good laugh. Not you, but the rest of us are going to be quite amused. Not even the completely modified, FAR more capable, MK16DP aboard Worcester was deemed satisfactory against airplanes, and the Cleveland's 6'' was for all intents and purposes a single purpose antisurface weapon, no matter how much stuff you try to conjure out of thin air to somehow point the opposite. During WW2 there was not a single 6'' DP weapon and mount operational. Not in the entire conflict. And no, Cleveland's 6'' triples count as much as DP Mounts as Yamato's triple 18'' guns or Tirpitz 15''s do. Which means: they don't count at all because they weren't DP at all. Cleveland was not a CL other than in name. And it's not just me the one who has come here to tell you exactly the same: The game classes ships by ROLE. And Cleveland's role was the same of that of a Baltimore: fleet cruiser, AAA escort (because of the 5'' mounts, not because of the main guns). Hence, in-game, like or not, is a CA, and will remain a CA. You're absolutely unique. You're pretty much talking sci-fi alternate universes here and you have the courage to write this. Stunning, just stunning.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 23, 2019 17:03:59 GMT -6
Naval authors and writers relay historical information. Those ships were included in the navy lists as light cruisers, and given CL-XXX numbers. The same they call Alaska a Large CRuiser, and not a battlecruiser. Navies of the time did that, they have to inform the reader accordingly. Does not change the fact that those ships in practice were not what they were called. Which those authors, btw, go out of the way mentioning too in their works. So tell me, exactly what does qualify the Mogamis as "Light" Cruisers, in practice (not in London Treaty theory) when they had 15x6'', when they were called "heavy" when they got less guns of 8'' caliber?. The rest of the ship remained the same. Tell me, should we be allowed to qualify a 9000 ton 8'' cruiser as "Light Cruiser" in game?. Because the americans did just that with the Pensacola. That class later reclassed as a CA as part of the London Treaty agreements ,but it WAS classed as a Light Cruiser initially. Should I open a thread them claiming for the game to allow me to do the same?. After all, a real historical navy did it.Right?. My opinion is that the game shouldn't even *have* a heavy cruiser classification unless certain treaty events happen. The light/heavy cruiser distinction is entirely an artifact of the London treaty. If not for the naval treaties, I'd anticipate that the average light cruiser of 1940 would have been in the 15kton range, and there would have been very few cruisers smaller than 10kton. Without the treaties, the world's capital ships by WWII would have been Yamato-sized, 70kton+ with 18"+ guns, and the Alaskas wouldn't have come close to qualifying as capital ships. If the USN had seen any use in building them it probably would either have classified them as CLs (given that they would be too light to qualify as BCs, and with no treaties to create a heavy cruiser classification, and all the predreadnought CAs scrapped long ago, only the CL and BC classifications would remain) or would have invented a classification of heavy/large cruiser for them. And CL might have helped with procurement :-) If I were designing the ship classification system for the game, I'd have types defined based on what percentile among existing ships a new class falls into for various statistics (speed, armament, armor, etc), modified by treaty, and perhaps also for characteristics such as naval budget (smaller navies might play games with the lower edge of "battleship") and militarism/bombastic head of state ("our battleships must be the biggest in the world! Come back with a destroyer that can face an American heavy cruiser! What do you mean we don't have the budget?" ).
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 23, 2019 17:04:43 GMT -6
The Cleveland guns were capable of a max elevation of 60 degrees ( 78 degrees for the later upgraded version on the Worcester ) They were capable of 10 RPM which is again comparable to 12 RPM for the later upgraded versions on the Worcester Traverse speed was not of major importance for large caliber heavy AA which engaged targets at long range where their speed would not impact traverse alot. For long range AA max elevation is not very critical either since a 40 degree angle is enough to reach the altitude most planes would come in at and more to boot. There he goes again. Again making absolutely ludicrous claims that make no sense. a) Worcester guns,MK16DP, beside the designation, were virtually new guns, on completely different (Twin) mounts. They were all-angle reload capable, they had automatic operation, they fired a semi-fixed set of ammo. Meanwhile the MK16 aboard Cleveland weren't all-angle reload capable, they had manual operation, they fired a conventional shell-and-charge ammo. Virtually the only thing both guns shared was the barrel. Worcester guns weren't an "upgrade". They virtually were completely different guns in operation, mechanisms, manual of operation, everything. b) Traverse and elevation speeds was the bread and butter for DP guns. "engaging targets at long range" is not the role of a DP gun, because a DP gun in AAA mode has to put a wall of explosions and watersplashes in the air up to the closest range possible. And traverse/elevation were probably the singlemost important stats on DP guns, besides reload speeds. As is proven by the british 5.25'' DP mount failure to meet expectations even when it had far better AA features than what the 6'' Mk16 triple mounts did...and as it was proven by worcester's 6'' DP guns, which were regarded as "not good enough in AA role" (the Worcester was a failed class, in case you didn't know it, because the guns and mounts weren't satisfactory enough for the job). c) Cleveland's 6'' MK16 was good for 10rpm in paper and perfect condition gun trials only. In battle they proved to be extremely fast firing for their caliber, but no, their actual practical rate of fire fell more around 8rpm. From the same website you used as source about the Mk16, commenting about Worcester's Mk16DP: These guns had a long development cycle with bursts of activity followed by periods of neglect. The officers of BuOrd had high hopes for these weapons, but they were continually frustrated in finding a home for them. Work began in 1937 as the main guns for a new class of cruisers limited by treaty to 8,000 tons. This project was halted in 1940 with the failure to produce an acceptable 8,000 ton design for this cruiser. An attempt in 1940 to get them onto what became the Montana class battleships died when BuOrd's own study showed that the 5"/38 (12.7 cm) and 5"/54 (12.7 cm) designs were better choices. In 1941 the guns were revived yet again, as the introduction of new, higher performing aircraft showed a corresponding need for a higher performance AAA weapon. However, the entry of the US into World War II meant that existing ships and weapons received priority and development of the new 6" (15.2 cm) was correspondingly slowed. The design was not finalized until 1943 and USS Worcester did not commission until 1948, long after the war was over.
These guns did not prove reliable in service, possibly because of the high rate of fire and need for any-elevation loading. Another contributing cause was that they used a dual projectile hoist system - one for AP and one for HC/AA shells - which proved to be a source of jamming. And the dual-purpose performance came at a steep price in weight, with these twin turrets weighing about 20% more than the triple turrets used on the previous Cleveland class. In this regards, it should also be noted that the late-war equivalent 5"/38 (12.7 cm) armed Atlanta class AA cruisers carried the same number of guns on less than half the displacement of Worcester. In other words, two Atlantas carrying a total of 24 of the excellent 5"/38 (12.7 cm) guns could be built for less tonnage than one Worcester carrying half as many guns, albeit more powerful ones.
What wikipedia has to say about the matter: The Mark 16DP used a two-gun semi-automatic "Dual Purpose" turret, for use against both air and surface targets. They were individually sleeved to allow independent elevation. They were produced in limited numbers late in the war. The DP turret could fire more quickly and elevate and train faster compared to the "single purpose" triple turret. The Worcester-class used these mountings.[1][3] These were not entirely satisfactory, and a triple DP mounting was proposed to replace them, but was cancelled after World War II.So after reading that we know that: a)The MK16DP dual mounts (worcester) had faster traverse, elevation and rate of fire than the MK16 triple mounts (Cleveland) b) Worcester mounts had only 2 guns and weighed 25% more than Cleveland's (accounting for the extra machinery and equipment needed to get the faster traverse and elevation the mount needed, and the extra equipment to increase RoF). c) Even then the guns were deemed unsatisfactory, and work was directed towards a new triple DP mount. Which obviously means that Cleveland's triple turret must've been a hell of a performer, given that a dual mount with faster traverse, reload, and rate of fire was "not entirely satisfactory". D): You're again just making drivel out of thin air that can't make less sense. No, I don't know this and you don't know it either. Clearly. No, YOU tell me, how many of those "All japanese planes and pilots the 6'' guns shot down the WW2" existed?. Give numbers - hard data, with source, of exactly how many times and in how many actions those guns were fired in AAA role, and how many planes did it shot down. Because we're about to have a good laugh. Not you, but the rest of us is going to be quite amused. Not even the completely modified, FAR more capable, MK16DP aboard Worcester was deemed satisfactory against airplanes, and the Cleveland's 6'' was for all intents and purposes a single purpose antisurface weapon, no matter how much stuff you try to conjure out of thin air to somehow point the opposite. During WW2 there was not a single 6'' DP weapon and mount operational. Not in the entire conflict. And no, Cleveland's 6'' triples count as much as DP Mounts as Yamato's triple 18'' guns or Tirpitz 15''s do. Which means: they don't count at all because they weren't DP at all. Cleveland was not a CL other than in name. And it's not just me the one who has come here to tell you exactly the same: The game classes ships by ROLE. And Cleveland's role was the same of that of a Baltimore: fleet cruiser, AAA escort (because of the 5'' mounts, not because of the main guns). Hence, in-game, like or not, is a CA, and will remain a CA. You're absolutely unique. You're pretty much talking sci-fi alternate universes here and you have the courage to write this. Stunning, just stunning. I'd just like to point out that this discussion is turning uncivil really quickly, and while it is fair to point out the lack of data behind some claims, it will be appropriate to provide refuting data rather than out right attacking the Alexbrunius. So here is some limited data im able to find with regard to the 6"/47 guns www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.html"The 6"/47, lacking an AA. computer and VT fuzes, was used but rarely against aircraft. It was responsible for two "kills." Both a computer and VT fuzes have been developed for this weapon." Seems to indicate very limited effectiveness of the gun, but again I note that there is more room to explore since the article did not really delve into their actual or theortical performance after the VT fuse and computer have been included. Also I want to point out that even if we establish that 6" guns on Cleveland are not very effective weapons, I wouldn't take a huge issue with Alexbrunius' interpretation of the "light cruiser" definition. I agree with dorn that this is simply a alternative way to define "Light cruiser" that is not necessarily incorrect. If we define "Light Cruiser" as they are popularly understood, than I would agree that Cleveland comes to mind as a "Light Cruiser", though I do think that impression is mostly due to the arbitrary divide caused by the Washington naval treaty. If we examine "Light Cruiser" as a role, than I agree that Cleveland is a very distinctive form of ship when compared to say, Dido class. I am happy with the way that the game defines these larger ships as CA because they do essentially serve a different role. There is no way to make both sides happy, but at the end of the day I don't think the divide is really a large issue that impacts gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 17:23:55 GMT -6
while it is fair to point out the lack of data behind some claims... It's not lack of data. Is made up stuff. There's a difference between stating facts without sources, and making facts up out of thin air and out of wishful thinking, conjuring them as true by default, and acting as if they were written truth, when they're completely made up. Based on literally decades of experience on online boards, no, it's not appropiate. The burden of proof resides on he who makes a bold statement, not on the one defending common knowledge. Against what every source states about Cleveland's triple turret, this guy comes and claims it was fully DP capable. Not only that, he claims it was an EXCELLENT DP weapon. Burden of proof and according data resides on him. Not on us. They never were. Neither of them. The weapon was incapable of effective AAA fire and everyone in the Navy knew it. That those guns were used in desperation against kamizakes didn't suddenly turn them into effective AA weapons, something they never were, or changed things so that suddenly the navy decided to turn them into such, because professional naval officers are usually smart enough to recognize that turrets like Cleveland's had no hope of ever being effective at the role, no matter the fire control computer associated, no matter the VT fuze. Those guns killed 2 japanese planes total during the whole of WW2, in the closing stages of the war were americans were desperately throwing even the bathroom's heads at kamikazes so they didn't slam their planes on their ships. Had a marine firing a BAR at an incoming japanese plane (dunno BARs, but there were cases of marines shooting their rifles) shot down a Japanese plane, it wouldn't have made it a DP weapon either, and it wouldn't have caused a project to increase the weapon's capability in AAA roles either. That's why the worcester was developed, with almost completely new guns, completely new turrets, specialized fire control systems and new shells, all of them engineered specifically to tailor them to AAA roles. The project was a failure of sorts, the guns and mounts unsatisfactory, the whole thing was shelved when it was recognized that AAA guns had a limited future anyway with the incoming jet era. Nobody is taking "huge issue" with Alexbruinus' interpretation of the light cruiser definition. What we (at least me) take huge issue with is that he's been repeatedly explained why in game they are not light cruisers: A) because in real life the only reason they were called light cruisers was because they were following a completely arbitrary definition set by the London Treaty (and settled on after extremely complex international negotiations and dealings so everyone would accept that definition) which made only sense in regulating their number and tonnage for treaty purposes, but made little or no sense in practical terms, the ships being Heavy Cruisers in almost every other regard. B) that the game needs a certain degree of simplicity in classifications, in order to use the ships properly when the battlemaking logic picks them up, places them on the map, and the AI uses them, and for the ships to be properly used according to how ships like those were REALLY used, the ship must be classed as CA. He has been repeatedly told this, and not only he still comes back with the same song (as if he had never been told anything) which is already tiresome, he begins bringing made up "facts" based on utter vapor and wishful thinking, which have absolutely nothing to do with reality, and passes them as cathegorical truths, going to the extreme of posting ridiculizing snippets towards those who are pointing at his BS calling it as the BS it is. That's the "huge issue" I (at least me, dunno others) have with this individual. Not because of his interpretation of the light cruiser definition. At any rate in this whole discussion there's only one who has used an insulting word ("idiot") towards others, and hasn't been me. I haven't insulted him in any way, other than treating him as a prime example of the dunning-kruger effect, at best, or a troll, at worst. That's the extent of my "attacks" if any. But I haven't insulted him even once while he did use the word "idiot" towards me at one point. For what it regards to me, there's that.
|
|