World of Warships

[Norfleet]

I think it would be more likely that players would discover the same things that were actually discovered in WW2: That your big expensive battleship is a white elephant.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

Battleships were more of a golden fish in that nobody wanted to risk them. Older battleships such as the Kongou class got some decent mileage and had to be stopped at Gaudacanal by the US sending two of it's newest battleships while the IJN were unwilling to commit the Nagato class or Yamato. The HMS Prince of Wales and Yamato were both sent into enemy waters without air support where they could be repeatedly engaged by enemy aircraft over several hours, while the Musashi required the combined firepower of several CAGs to bring down, allowing for the rest of the task force to withdraw safely. Considering that the Japs lost four carriers in 5 minutes, while the Yamato's took 10 hours to sink, they should have committed more resources into battleships if they wanted value.

 

[Norfleet]

I don't think the time it took to lose them is the issue. If they hadn't lost all those carriers, their battleships might have HAD air cover. The problem would still be that they are horribly expensive and get blasted to scrap from ranges at which they aren't useful.

 

[Ulminati]

Yeah.... I think I'll wait and see Gaijins offering. This look popamolar as fuck.

 

[Destroid]

Battleships were more of a golden fish in that nobody wanted to risk them. Older battleships such as the Kongou class got some decent mileage and had to be stopped at Gaudacanal by the US sending two of it's newest battleships while the IJN were unwilling to commit the Nagato class or Yamato. The HMS Prince of Wales and Yamato were both sent into enemy waters without air support where they could be repeatedly engaged by enemy aircraft over several hours, while the Musashi required the combined firepower of several CAGs to bring down, allowing for the rest of the task force to withdraw safely. Considering that the Japs lost four carriers in 5 minutes, while the Yamato's took 10 hours to sink, they should have committed more resources into battleships if they wanted value.

I suspect they could build several very large carriers for the cost of a single Yamato class.

 

[Norfleet]

The interesting thing is that the obsolesence of the battleship had been predicted and demonstrated well before WW2. Big money and careers, of course, were in those battleships, so this was basically shouted down. WW2 demonstrated that this was correct, and battleships ended up as coffins for a lot of people.

Now carriers themselves are likely obsolete. This, too, has been demonstrated. Naturally, it has been shouted down and newer, fancier carriers are being produced. Will they, too, wind up as tombs should the next war arise? Or will they perhaps be able to quietly phase out before that war, like the tank? Yeah, tanks are on their way out, too. You will note nobody really feels like designing a new tank anymore and the number of tanks in the world is declining.

 

[Destroid]

If you want to bomb people in far away places you need either basing rights or carriers. I don't see carriers being obsolete for a very long time, but they are certainly suffering under growing vulnerability.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, sure, if your goal is merely to bomb towelheads, carriers will do fine. But if your goal is something down to earth and unambitious like that, you don't need a fancy carrier, you just need a thing that launches planes, and not fancy jet planes, either.

For "real" war, however, the kind where having good stuff matters, carriers are dangerously exposed and likely obsolete already. We've already had a number of rather embarrassing cases of carriers that got "destroyed", like when a Chinese submarine "toasted" the Kitty Hawk. All the fancy stuff and escorts were basically powerless to prevent a lone submarine from being able to destroy the carrier.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

The obvious choice would be a submersible carrier, duh.

 

[Norfleet]

Submarine-launched UAVs are the way of the future, yes.

 

[Zdzisiu]

The obvious choice would be a submersible carrier, duh.

Carriers in space! Deal with that motherfuckers!

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Submarine-launched UAVs are the way of the future, yes.

Stopgap solutions, lame! We need a purpose build super-submarine-carrier, preferably out-massing Project 941 four or five times. Think big.

 

[Norfleet]

The future is in small. Large numbers of small, dangerous things. Rather than a single target, a swarm of angry robot bees. Because AAAH! BEES!

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

I suspect they could build several very large carriers for the cost of a single Yamato class.

Carriers typically cost as much as a battlecruiser, requiring large hulls in order to hold a sufficient amount of aircraft and aviation fuel. In addition the aircraft themselves would likely put the price of a carrier on par to a battleship. Also most battleships were already in existance from the 1914s, and were merely modernised from existing stock rather then an active burden to produce like carriers.

Also the 3rd Yamato class battleship was finished as Aircraft Carrier Shinano, which sunk immediately to a submarine torpedo without doing anything.

And much good it did the Japanese, who sunk all their money on Carriers (The Japs built 11 carriers during WW2 compared to 2 battleships and no heavy carriers), which proved to be useless during the Great marianas turkey shoot. Without aircraft that could contest the air superiority of the USN, the carriers proceeded to be little more then decoys at Leyte gulf.

I agree with the notion that Carriers are completely obsolete but have the unique niche in the modern world of allowing American air support without needing permission from other nations to use airfields.

 

[Norfleet]

Also the 3rd Yamato class battleship was finished as Aircraft Carrier Shinano, which sunk immediately to a submarine torpedo without doing anything.

Yeah, they never really finished it properly, it was sent out to sea to be moved without having been finished properly or loaded, built too late to change the outcome of the war. It was sunk immediately because it was sent out unloaded, without a proper crew, and insufficient escorts.

The number of carriers lost to submarines is a sort of a warning of what will happen to carriers today, especially since carriers themselves have remained fundamentally unchanged (you can't really change much about a box full of planes), while submarines have gotten faster, better, meaner, and sneakier, as the Chinese demonstrated. A whole shitpile of escorts, including two subs of our own, and we still basically lost the carrier to a single lousy sub. A sub like that isn't all that expensive, some of our future raghead enemies may have some, at which point the blood becomes real instead of just a demo.

I agree with the notion that Carriers are completely obsolete but have the unique niche in the modern world of allowing American air support without needing permission from other nations to use airfields.

Indeed, but perhaps we should be building them cheaply for this purpose instead of the giant bells-and-whistles Gerald R. Ford model. The result being that we don't have ENOUGH carriers because they are too big, too expensive, and too few. If we had MORE, cheaper, smaller carriers, we could bomb towelheads in more places at once! If they can sink a small carrier, they can sink a big one just as easily, but at least the small ones would be cheaper.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

Diesel Subs are curiously among the cheapest and fastest ships to make. If the Chinese Navy had any intelligence they would have spent their money buying up the Ex-Soviet submarine fleet rather then buying that shitty carrier.

 

[Norfleet]

The Chinese don't need to buy crappy old Soviet subs, they already produce their own very nice ones. They want the carrier because they have no carriers and wish to study one. They have no need for outdated Soviet subs when they already make very modern Chinese ones.

The fact that they are relatively cheap and and quick to deploy means that they are utterly deadly to carriers, as we've found out already: One lone sub can destroy a carrier completely undetected, and as it turns out, there was fuck all we could do to prevent that....and for the price of that carrier, there can be many such subs.

If they put subs in the game, their "World of Warships" could likely end up as "World of Submarines".

 

[Whiran]

Carriers in space! Deal with that motherfuckers!

I want the Tigerclaw.

As for future development at sea my view is that mobile baseships will be of greater value than aircraft carriers. If it were submersible as well that'd be awesome but I'm not sure how much value that really adds since the form wouldn't be 'silent' under the water.

A base that could launch drones and missiles with heavy electronic warfare capabilities would be super useful. Guard it with a few boats that have lasers and / or railguns and voila - modern fleet warfare?

 

[Destroid]

Whiran Isn't that what a carrier already is?

 

[Norfleet]

Yes, that's pretty much what a supercarrier is, a mobile sea-borne base. The problem is that it's also a huge, exposed target that can be destroyed or put out of action far more cheaply than it can be built. One unfortunate encounter with a comparatively cheap Chinesee sub and your huge floating base is now a reef.

 

[aron searle]

Which country that has carriers doesnt also have access to airbases virtually where required?

On the subject of the game, I can't understand the point. Tanks can hide and take cover, a battleship game will just be ships in open water firing at each other, noting but a HP and damage contest.

 

[J_C]

Yes, that's pretty much what a supercarrier is, a mobile sea-borne base. The problem is that it's also a huge, exposed target that can be destroyed or put out of action far more cheaply than it can be built. One unfortunate encounter with a comparatively cheap Chinesee sub and your huge floating base is now a reef.

That's why Carriers travel in battlegroups. Good luck getting near them either by plane, ship or sub.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

Silence isn't all that important in modern submarines, if they really wanted to find you they'd use active sonar. The main advantage of being submersible is being invisible to radar, rather then merely being "stealthy" to it ie not at all.

Carrier battlegroups are incapable of protecting carriers from secondary missiles waves. Current anti-missile systems can protect against incoming missiles but cannot be re-armed in time should another wave come in 45 seconds later. Submarines are always a danger, and while you can use active sonar to detect them, doing so alerts everyone of your location. Not to mention submarines can be armed with cruise missiles and don't need to engage with torpedoes.

On the subject of the game, I can't understand the point. Tanks can hide and take cover, a battleship game will just be ships in open water firing at each other, noting but a HP and damage contest.

Tanks hiding and taking cover is a retarded concept that negates the entire point of tanks, they were fucking invented to cross the killzones of WWI and be the goddamn cover for the infantry.

Naval combat is based on formations and maneuvering, ships don't magically stop in place and exchange volleys, they are in constant motion. The firing arcs of all your weapon systems make it of premium importance to present a broadside to your opponent while minimising the number of weapons they can fire back. Crossing the T is paramount to pre-modern naval tactics.

Of course they're going to fuck it up, just as they did to armoured combat.

 

[Destroid]

Which country that has carriers doesnt also have access to airbases virtually where required?

On the subject of the game, I can't understand the point. Tanks can hide and take cover, a battleship game will just be ships in open water firing at each other, noting but a HP and damage contest.

Brazil, India, Russia.


Navy field was a lot of fun because to get the best performance you had to manually aim your guns by elevation and rotation, predict for flight time and then correct, while the enemy was dodging your shells. Torpedoes mixed it up nicely to make for a satisfying game between those systems alone.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

This game needs limited ammunition like I need my next breath.