Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
WorIdofWarsheeps

Guess which one is the battleship!

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

618
[KOREA]
Moderator, Community Contributor, Super Tester_
827 posts
8,021 battles

1036160645_2020-04-12003031.thumb.png.8cb26a28ec343b61f2cfdc5f7d8c519d.png1512458460_2020-04-12003112.thumb.png.b37aac22e70c83ec4b9c1883e6ef4f4e.png1836323459_2020-04-12003157.thumb.png.df2f2684e8b11048b341b5a908e3bfb5.png1373058584_2020-04-12003208.thumb.png.68d694cabdd38523c8140946215ce705.png

One is Battleship, and the other one is for sure Cruiser!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,613
Member
4,941 posts
8,860 battles

That weird "midpoint" design philosophy is why I prefer the term "super cruiser". Technically cruisers, but super :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,284
[-CAT-]
Member
2,546 posts
11,652 battles
11 minutes ago, Work_ln_Progress said:

1036160645_2020-04-12003031.thumb.png.8cb26a28ec343b61f2cfdc5f7d8c519d.png1512458460_2020-04-12003112.thumb.png.b37aac22e70c83ec4b9c1883e6ef4f4e.png

One is Battleship, and the other one is for sure Cruiser!

Top is BB.

Bottom is CB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
635
[CLAY]
[CLAY]
Member
641 posts
3,300 battles

Iowa and Puerto Rico. PR is below, right, left, right.

Not that hard, as Iowa has three triple turrets (overproud americans called them triple gun config which is superior etc. whatever).

Other way to differentiate them is by looking at the superstructure. Iowa's bridge is much wider and longer, while PR is small and out of proportion with the tower mast. There's also the funnel cap which is more round on Iowa.

I'm still puzzled why the Americans even built the large cruiser concept. They're just as expensive, heavy, and required the same amount of crew yet at the same time inferior in terms of gun caliber and adequate protection for her size. The Iowas is more than able to counter the B-65 supercruisers (the reason why Alaska is built) and myriad of battlefleet tasks, while the smaller Baltimores and Clevelands are good enough for carrier escort and shore bombardment. 

Edited by Earl_of_Arland
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
704
[SALT]
Member
2,064 posts
10,542 battles
23 minutes ago, Earl_of_Arland said:

I'm still puzzled why the Americans even built the large cruiser concept. They're just as expensive, heavy, and required the same amount of crew yet at the same time inferior in terms of gun caliber and adequate protection for her size. The Iowas is more than able to counter the B-65 supercruisers (the reason why Alaska is built) and myriad of battlefleet tasks, while the smaller Baltimores and Clevelands are good enough for carrier escort and shore bombardment. 

Simple.........

All American Battleship construction are Halted or canceled following Battle of Midway. Airpower just shown how dominant they are in Naval warfare and construction were prioritize for Aircraft Carrier.

US insist its a Cruiser, so they can legitimately purchase Pseudo Battleship  Cruiser. without the Budget getting stopped at Congress. this actualy nifty Tricks that used often, DDG Zumwalt for Example originaly were Future Cruiser Project CGX - but Congress dont want to fund Expensive Cruiser project, so Navy re-Label it as "Destroyer" so it wont get cut

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,191
[CLAY]
Member
2,847 posts
12,661 battles
7 hours ago, humusz said:

Simple.........

All American Battleship construction are Halted or canceled following Battle of Midway. Airpower just shown how dominant they are in Naval warfare and construction were prioritize for Aircraft Carrier.

US insist its a Cruiser, so they can legitimately purchase Pseudo Battleship  Cruiser. without the Budget getting stopped at Congress. this actualy nifty Tricks that used often, DDG Zumwalt for Example originaly were Future Cruiser Project CGX - but Congress dont want to fund Expensive Cruiser project, so Navy re-Label it as "Destroyer" so it wont get cut

So the super cruiser concept was just because some people wanted BBs in a CV world and thought discussing a BB as a CA would get it through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
741
[LBAS]
Member
4,936 posts
11,053 battles

If it Montana I won't argue you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
704
[SALT]
Member
2,064 posts
10,542 battles
7 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

So the super cruiser concept was just because some people wanted BBs in a CV world and thought discussing a BB as a CA would get it through?

In American case ? yeah

3 Weeks after Midway, American cut 18 Planned  Big gun Capital ship to just 10. while Carrier there 23 in queue + 13 another added within weeks after midway. 

whole montana got canceled, IOWA class got cut into 4. now they have shortage of Big Gun capital ship for Escort  .The Kongo class is the main headache, this thing is Fast, reliable for its age, can outrun every Current US big gun capital ship aside from future IOWA and outgun every US heavy Cruiser. in case they meet.

There is also report of Kongo class replacement, but all US Capital ship effort is all in on Carrier. So, Alaska was "cruiser" to adress both of concern. Alaska can adress Kongo and its future replacement threat. and since its a "Cruiser" - Alaska is not a Big Gun Capital ships. This was diffrent than "Battlecruiser" since Battlecruiser is considered Capital ships but "Large Heavy Cruiser" is not.  So Navy can retain a Budget for her if she labeled as a Cruiser, put it into priority List of building in Crowded shipyard so She can deployed Faster.  and so goes with the Ruse, They did

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×