Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I doubt that  you can easily gain equal damage with 1.5 (140mm) - 3(110mm) times lighter shell. Even 160mm (6.4 inch) isn't great caliber for a cruiser. I'd prefer 200mm for heavy cruisers. and eventually 300mm for our first battleship\battlecruier

But I do think that we need 100-120mm naval gun for destroyers, and destroyers are more important than cruisers, else we'll get an unbalanced fleet.

[Patrick Hunt]

Well can double up. Develop a new 120mm high power and also develop a 160mm high power. Giving us the best mid and long range naval cannon.

Ugh Aero is such a waste on this plane when we really need the longer flight time.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

If you let me comment the design nicely: Oh god, no!
Well, at least that was my first reaction upon seeing it equipped with a ram. And, it still is for that ram. The other systems look pretty nice - they can complement the cruisers nicely. But the ramming tonnage will mostly be useless - ramming may be useful against unarmoured enemy ships (note the may, that's a pretty big may), but will therefore need to close within close range. And, looking at our own models, it would be engaged by 40mm guns and 15mm machine guns long before closing - even when the main guns are occupied.

In facts Rams were placed on many pre WW1 era vessels of all sizes it was decided that it is impractical mostly because combat went to greater ranges, not because you can't sink enemy with

 There are many ship that were sunk\badly damaged in friendly, low speed, collisions.

 You badly underestimate size of a hole that ramming can do

 Ships are hard to stop, even if you blow half of it, inertia will do the job. Also, Ships are bad at dodging

 With armored nose machineguns will not be that effective against narrow ship aproaching that way. Remember that deck is mostly empty as there are no guns to man. Same goes for 40mm... 80mm are problem, but they still need to hit

 If we gonna use rocket torpedoes, we may as well use  the ram. There are almost no difference between 1km and zero in naval battle... Ship needs a minute at most to cover that distance... So, going close enough to be able to use rockets is almost as suicidical as ramming, in no way the ship can retreat after getting so close to cruisers, at least let it ram in effective way

 As it was pointed, ram designed in a proper way helps hydronymamics

Many submarines were sunk by intentional ramming during WW2

 This ship needs nose armor anyway, why not ram with it?

[Patrick Hunt]

Because once you hit the target it's 3 friends will blow holes in your ship before you can get moving again? And our ships are more useful without big holes in them?

Even damaged we can repair them.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

This torpedo boats are basically suicide ships... Getting close to group of cruisers and it's escorts is a one way ticket in any situation, turning around to run away will be the last, rather useless maneuver of the ship

Also, If that kind of shis will hit the cruiser and stuck in it, it will turn the cruiser in sitting duck for other ships in the fleet\planes

You badly underestimate what kind of damage ramming can do

[Patrick Hunt]

No I just see no reason to waste material on a suicide ship.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Sinking enemy cruisers isn't a waste of material

[Taricus]

There's a difference in cost effectiveness in doing so. Suicide ships aren't practical, not to mention there'd be a real shortage in crewmen that actually want to serve on one.

We cannot afford to throw away resources so flippantly. Start developing more powerful and longer-ranged topedoes instead, those will have the effect you're looking for, andf are a lot cheaper. Not to mention far less depressing for our naval crews.

[Patrick Hunt]

And much lower public relations cost when people find out we're sending our own people to die on purpose.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

How is this different to sending a wave of infantry to take fortified position? Most will die

Same here, they are not guaranteed to die , but yes, that's high risk thing to attack cruisers using small crafts

And ram is mostly armor here and an option. Option! Option when retreat is impossible. Option to kill that pesky sub. And option to die for a country as hero stopping that cruiser\destroyer that costed enemy way more than torpedo boat

We are in serious trouble navywise, outnumbered like 10 to 1, we need solutions, we need to take that cruisers! Else those cruiser will just sunk all our ships without any problems

Oh. And we play communists, so this - we can't send our people to die because that will hurt morale is not needed

[Taricus]

Just because we're communist, doesn't mean we're russian. There's a pretty big difference between an economic system and a culture you know.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You wont to say that North Koreans\Chinese\insert whatever communist regime, worries about it's people and has another military doctrine? Heh. Don't want to argue

Anyway I think we'll have no navy in the few next turns, Sharks\shore batteries  may (big may) help us to defend our shores, but shipments will be cut off.

[3_14159]

In facts Rams were placed on many pre WW1 era vessels of all sizes it was decided that it is impractical mostly because combat went to greater ranges, not because you can't sink enemy with

 There are many ship that were sunk\badly damaged in friendly, low speed, collisions.

Yes. But we have a big difference in tonnage sizes. For example, while ramming was usual for destroyers vs subs, it was discouraged because of damage to the destroyer (plus subs being easier to damage). When Glowworm (destroyer) rammed Hippler (battleship), she tore of her own bow, without doing much damage.

With armored nose machineguns will not be that effective against narrow ship aproaching that way. Remember that deck is mostly empty as there are no guns to man. Same goes for 40mm... 80mm are problem, but they still need to hit

 If we gonna use rocket torpedoes, we may as well use  the ram. There are almost no difference between 1km and zero in naval battle... Ship needs a minute at most to cover that distance... So, going close enough to be able to use rockets is almost as suicidical as ramming, in no way the ship can retreat after getting so close to cruisers, at least let it ram in effective way

Indeed there is. About a kilometre is circa the distance where 15mm MGs become effective. Hitting the boat gets easier and easier after that. Armouring the whole front is probably pretty useless as you have to have a bridge looking forwards to manoeuvre. You do not have to destroy the ship - you can just kill the crew or destroy the mechanics and the ship can't correct any more and cannot actually hit you.

As it was pointed, ram designed in a proper way helps hydronymamics

Many submarines were sunk by intentional ramming during WW2

 This ship needs nose armor anyway, why not ram with it?

And the destroyers were often damaged.
Plus, if we need nose armour, build it above the waveline, if we don't, make a ram-similar, unarmoured design to help aerodynamics.

Those torpedo boats will, by ramming, do less damage than with one of their torpedoes - excluding of course the inclusion of explosives in the bows themselves which won't help their survivability and turn them into 300t torpedoes.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

a) British destroyers were fragile and not designed for ramming

b) No, there are no difference between 1km and zero, because ships are bad at turning and changing directions. You will get closer after you shoot the rockets. And you will turn you side to that machineguns while turning. In fact avoiding collision from 1 km is  hard thing to do. 1km distance from task force = dead for any small ship.

c) As I said, ship doesn't need alive crew to go forward in the straight line

d) We don't have a lot of systems that need to be operated from the deck, so our crew should be protected enough from machineguns

e) even if ramming is weak enough to sink cruiser, it will sink a destroyer, as those think readily even from minor collisions

[Patrick Hunt]

Give it up Ukrainian, nobody but you thinks that wasting metal and production space on suicide craft is a good idea. That metal and production space can be better used on warships that are more then a 1 shot then gone weapon if it even reaches it's target at all and doesn't sink first.

Which is why I removed my vote from 11.1

We need a fleet of warships, not a fleet of modern day fire ships.


And as for your previous statement how is it different from an infantry assault? Several things but most importantly? Infantry can be replaced a lot more easily.