These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battleships and above,...weapon systems and such

First post First post
Author
Alara IonStorm
#21 - 2013-05-14 04:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Radius Prime wrote:

You didn't, you are right that many Americans are nuts and ignorant tho.

As opposed to the smart rational people of other nations. Lol

Radius Prime wrote:

The Japanese Yamato-class had almost twice the displacement of the Missouri.. So that's almost twice your tonnage and 2 of the class were built.

Actually they were a little less than 40% larger.

A third was actually built as an Aircraft Carrier (Shinano), the heaviest of the war. It was sunk by a Submarine like 10 days out of port. Hilarious I think overall. The Yamoto's designed to fight Battleships met their end to Aircraft, the Shinano designed to face Aircraft Carriers and was sunk by a Sub.

Just can't catch a break.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#22 - 2013-05-14 04:35:12 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.


Guns are so 1940s... modern warships are basically Caldari. All missiles and ECM.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#23 - 2013-05-14 04:36:50 UTC
The USS Missouri doesn't have nearly the rate of fire that EVE Ships have.

Consider, the 1400mm Artillery on a Tornado can fire nearly 4 volleys per minute to the USS Missouri's 2.


1400mm is 1.4m is a 4.5ft diameter barrel.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#24 - 2013-05-14 05:21:02 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Ah-murr-ikka's may have been bigger, but Old Blighty's was cooler.

Ni.

Tuttomenui II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2013-05-14 05:34:02 UTC
Battleships went away after WW2 because of carriers. Carriers made Battleships obsolete. Or something like that.
Alara IonStorm
#26 - 2013-05-14 05:37:23 UTC

Not a fan of the Vanguard design.

I prefer the HMS Nelson from an aesthetic point of view.
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#27 - 2013-05-14 05:49:20 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Not a fan of the Vanguard design.

I prefer the HMS Nelson from an aesthetic point of view.


Oh, sooooo marvellously elegant. How do the Brits do it? Must be something in the water?

Ni.

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#28 - 2013-05-14 05:54:22 UTC
Frigates are supposed to be useless, small, cheap craft with no punch that serve as the firepower where the other guys have shuttles or as scouts for a bigger battle group or a plain run of the mil ship for your average tom **** and harry with no isk.

And yet CCP and a huge portion of the member base demand hand-holding and camp fires for Frigates at the expense of the bigger ships.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#29 - 2013-05-14 05:54:46 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Not a fan of the Vanguard design.

I prefer the HMS Nelson from an aesthetic point of view.


Oh, sooooo marvellously elegant. How do the Brits do it? Must be something in the water?


I honestly liked the look of the Yamato. Something about the bridge superstructure just does it for me.
Alara IonStorm
#30 - 2013-05-14 06:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Lyrrashae wrote:

Oh, sooooo marvellously elegant. How do the Brits do it? Must be something in the water?

Funny you should mention water, she was designed entirely around naval treaty limitations exploiting superior firepower on a smaller hull. The British argued that since they had a large Empire to protect their ships weight limit should not include an excess of water and fuel needed for long distance travel then made the torpedo defense bulges use water as a defense to deflect explosions saving on limited steel tonnage.

The were called Cherry Tree class because the Washington Naval Treaty cut their size down but also gave them their unique design.

This image though small has always been my favorite.
Akirei Scytale wrote:

I honestly liked the look of the Yamato. Something about the bridge superstructure just does it for me.

The Pagoda Mast was designed after Asian temple towers. They were a feature on all Japanese Battleships.

My favorite battleships of the war were the Kongo class. Of Japanese Battleships they did more fighting in Pacific than the rest combined.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#31 - 2013-05-14 07:11:57 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:

My favorite battleships of the war were the Kongo class. Of Japanese Battleships they did more fighting in Pacific than the rest combined.


Even better! Awesome.

And yeah, Japan wanted the Pacific war to be decided in one massive engagement, so they kept all their "flagships" and critically important vessels as safe as possible, avoiding committing them to small engagements. Hence, the less-equipped battleships saw almost all of the action.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#32 - 2013-05-14 07:20:35 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Frigates are supposed to be useless, small, cheap craft with no punch that serve as the firepower where the other guys have shuttles or as scouts for a bigger battle group or a plain run of the mil ship for your average tom **** and harry with no isk.
[citation needed]
Axel Kurki
Aseyakone
#33 - 2013-05-14 07:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Axel Kurki
Nah, that's just a bad troll. Or someone who's used to in WoW that higher level is always better.

And on guns, Maelstroms can fire up to eight 1400mm cannon, or if wanting to count barrels, sixteen 650mm repeating artillery cannons. (Autocannons. That's 25.6 inch diameter for those suffering of archaic units of measurement.) If we want to split hairs, EVE ships carry at least the double the amount, since they have to cover both sides.

Ragnarok, of course, has six hardpoints of quad 3500mm siege artillery or 6x2500mm repeating artillery. Which is, technically, 2x24 3500mm barrels or 2x36 2500mm barrels, making it the most overgunned heap of scrap metal with a warp drive in the cluster.
Le Badass
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2013-05-14 07:56:39 UTC
Came expecting American chestbeating. Got some with Polish chestbeating as a bonus.
Left satisfied.
Stan'din
Pandemic Alpha
#35 - 2013-05-14 08:13:11 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Still not as bad ass as a carrier ;)

Your about as much use as a condom dispenser in the Vatican.

Alara IonStorm
#36 - 2013-05-14 08:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Akirei Scytale wrote:

And yeah, Japan wanted the Pacific war to be decided in one massive engagement, so they kept all their "flagships" and critically important vessels as safe as possible, avoiding committing them to small engagements. Hence, the less-equipped battleships saw almost all of the action.

One of the interesting things about the Japanese decisive battle will end the war theory is what it did for everything else on the war front. Japan planned a short war where one victory would be required to end it while the US looked two years ahead. This is evidenced by almost everything the US did vs when the Japanese started doing it. They tended to addapt after the crisis started not before in prevention of it.

After Pearl Harbor the US knew exactly where its bread was buttered and immediately started laying new Essex Carriers out. Even realizing that these new Carriers would take too long they started converting 8 Light Cruisers under construction into Light Carriers for the coming storm. While the Japanese converted a few prewar ships designed to be converted to Carriers in the event of war and had a prewar one under construction the first new Japanese Wartime Carriers were laid after Midway. 9 Months after the conflict started.

The Japanese planned 16 new Unryu class Fleet Carriers. The penultimate Aircraft Carrier battle of the Pacific happened at the Mariana's in June 1944 saw 5 Japanese Fleet Carriers and 4 Light Carriers face 7 US Fleet Carriers and 8 Light Carriers and the first two Unryu Carriers were commissioned less than a month after and a third 2 months after that. Nine months is along time. They became so desperate for Carriers they did this to one of their Battleships.

The plans for the rest of them were curtailed by steal and oil supply lines being cut by Subs. Japan didn't start building Escort Ships and organizing convoys in large numbers until late 1943 after their merchant fleet was being decimated. They had in commission 2 types C and D from early 1944 building over 120 of them and introduced more small Escort Carriers after the battle for their supply lines was in full swing and therefore too late. They also didn't want to assign front line Destroyers considering the ASW duty of protecting merchant ships unworthy. As well they built hundreds of cheap no frills merchant ships to combat the losses they were incurring. Compared to the early US effort to put Escort Carriers and Destroyer Escorts / Frigates to sea and assign more Destroyers to back units plus their massive right from the start Liberty Cargo Ship construction program. About 6 nearly finished Carriers would be left incomplete to these shortages and too...

Then their were their pilots and planes. They had the absolute best of both when the war started. The Zero is an icon that served as their go to naval fighter for the entire war. The US Wildcat was inferior so the US released the Hellcat and the Corsair to beat down the Zero and it worked and there in lies the problem. They had the best fighter and didn't put their designers to the task of building something that could best it and therefore the fighters the Allies would be designing. Those great pilots on the other hand inflicted heavy US fighter casualties... then all died. The US worked very hard to pump out qualified pilots and over 5 or so battles and dozens of skirmishes the great Japanese pilots were slowly whittled down by AA fire and enemy planes and little was being down to replace them until they realized they were in short supply.

That battle in the Mariana's above was called the Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot because the quality of new pilots was so very low while the quality of new US planes was so very high. The Japanese would then with few good pilots left abandon their Carriers and begin the Kamikaze flown by pilots with as little as a days training. 4000 Kamikaze would fly and 10000 more were waiting on the home isle, they had the planes not the pilots. Well they did innovate on one plane... yeah that's a human missile.

Even on the ground Bolt Action Rifles were the primary weapons produced in the entire war and when I say primary I mean it. Not one semi automatic rifle saw full service. They knew how to make Sub-machine guns, the kind great for island, jungle, mountain, urban fighting, basically the Pacific War in a nutshell but only made 30000 for special forces and over 6 million bolt actions. There first anti tank rocket launcher came too late and many new antitank guns would not pierce American tanks.

All this led to a strategy where starving regiments would be blockaded, scouted, bombarded and their airplanes/fields destroyed and than US / Australian troops invade with a force tailored to defeat their enemy killing 5 sometimes 10 to 1. The principal strategy was no surrender, fight to the death and maybe the Allies will be like, this is too bloody let's go home. Instead they took the Islands they needed and bypassed the ones they didn't leaving them to starve and used the ones the took to bombard Japan with B-29's.

Once we bring our Battleships into the ocean now swarming with uncontested Allied Subs and Bombers we will have our Battleship duel with the Great Yamato crushing their Battleships and they will realize it is hopeless. Just one more bloody battle and they will all go home. People say production won the war and they are right but Japanese strategic planning / lack of adaptation sure played a big part in helping. Ironically the conquest in the Pacific that gave them the most trouble was the Philippians which didn't have the resources they needed, the British and Dutch Isles did and if they ignored the Philippians and Hawaii and went for them they probably never would have involved the US.
pussnheels
Viziam
#37 - 2013-05-14 08:27:33 UTC
the mistake you are making is comparing EvE ships and technology with Real historical examples

just don't
it is not working

rhe only thing is what is real is that the EvE BS on their own are just as vulnerable to gangs of smaller more nimble shps as their real historical counterparts

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2013-05-14 10:23:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
^
... for a bit different reasons, but yeah.

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Because Eve is a game. If BSes had point defense weapons, frigs would be pretty useless. It's about balance and roles. So, even new players in frigs have a role.

Pretty much this, although I must admit that it made me chuckle when I realized that a couple of even 3500mm guns are nothing like firepower you would install onto 18km long ship, even if you take into account all those "guns" on ship model added to make it look plausible that you can fire in any direction, as by game mech.

Let's not even start on that IRL you'd rather build several ships instead...
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-05-14 10:30:57 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
You are even lucky that Adolf ****** started his war before his navy was ready. 5 planned classes were to be built, were bigger then the Missouri. The biggest class was 5 times as large and was to carry 20 inch guns. Would have been an absolute beauty.
In the end all Adolf ****** achieved was besting even the worst Americans when it came to nuttiness and ignorance tho. Google "Nasi H-class battleships" for more info about them.


You mean they would have been good target practice for carrier launched torpedo bombers?
Alara IonStorm
#40 - 2013-05-14 10:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Karsa Egivand wrote:

You mean they would have been good target practice for carrier launched torpedo bombers?

Don't forget Dive Bombers.

Torpedo's hit below the belt, Dive Bombers burn the deck. I like that combination because it gives me the mental image of a very short guy running up to a big tall fat guy and punching him in the nuts, while he hunches in pain over another one comes up and drops an anvil on his head. Thump!

Call of Duty Looney Tunes Edition. Big smile