Jump to content
Black Chicken Studios Forums

Pillwalker

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pillwalker

  1. Ah my childhood. I can't watch the original dub of digimon because I grew up on the english version. Pokemon may have had better games but Digimon had the better show.
  2. The Battle of Jutland happened 100 years ago this week and some of the ships that took part in this battle will be Belles, including the much championed Queen Elizabeth - class. Let's hope these ships Belles have learned a thing or two to keep the young ones of '39 from making the same mistakes and hopefully we captain can also learn from this, the biggest clash of warships in modern history. This YouTube channel follows the events of the Great War week by week so you can go back and see all kinds of amazing videos, some of which are indeed ship related. So what went wrong? Why did the British Battlecruisers do so poorly? Was it just incompetence? Poor design? Well as I see it, the Battlecruisers were not used properly. At Jutland the BCs were being used in the same way as conventional battleships, "sailing" in a line instead of using their speed and maneuverability to avoid damage. Also Battecruisers as a concept are not designed for such a brawl. BCs were designed to hunt and kill cruisers as they did in the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December, 1914, using their speed to hunt down such prey and to run from things bigger than them, like Battleships. The way they were used at Jutland negated all of their advantages and the bad British habit of storing the powder charges high in the turret (technically against RN regs but not enforced) meant that every hit basically blew the ship up. So indeed, something was very wrong with their ships. So do you think the British fleet was lead incompetently or were they limited by their lack of established night-fighting procedures and protocols? Could the British ships even aim properly? Were the Germans just better gunners or were the German ships simply that much more durable. Something I've noticed about a lot of British ship designs is that they seem to lack durability compared to some of their contemporaries, mostly the German and American ships (I don't have a lot of knowledge of French warships or Italian ships from the same period). American and German ships were famous for taking a massive pounding and surviving. Or failing that, they took a lot of effort to sink. Look how much effort had to go into sinking Bismark and Tirpitz. Bismark took a huge number of shells from 2 British battleships, one on either side of her, and in addition to that she took a torpedo from HMS Rodney. She still didn`t sink, she was technically scuttled (but she would have eventually been sunk anyway). Tirpitz also took a massive pounding to bring down, requiring Lancasters to fly over and drop Grand Slam bombs, bombs designed to cause small earthquakes, to bring her down. For American ships you're spoiled for choice. USS Laffey, USS Franklin, USS Hornet (CV-8). so resilient were they that the Japanese often thought some of them were ghost ships because ships they thought sunk came back to fight them again. British ships by comparison seemed pretty flimsy. HMS Ark Royal was eventually sunk by a single torpedo, the Leander-class cruisers, while well built for certain, had all their propulsion machinery roughly in the same area. But at least with them they have the excuse that they had to fit within limitations set by the Washington Naval Treaty, something you'll see come up a lot in discussions of the Belles of '39. One thing the British did do that was good but few others did, was put armoured flight decks on their carriers. This would prove fortuitous during the Battle of the Mediterranean. Makes me curious as to why the other nations didn't. I can only assume for the earlier carriers that it was due to treaty limits but even later carriers seemed to continue using unarmored flight decks. So what do you think?
  3. I think HMS Cossack should have a cutlass because it was allegedly used during the Altmark incident. Even if the historical accuracy is somewhat hazy it hasn't been disproven either and since it's part of her reputation I think it should be a part of her design.
  4. Canada's pride usually takes the form of jokes and humor. Help keep us from being jerks about our obvious superiority . And also we have that adorable inferiority complex.
  5. Well while this is not a military theme it is somewhat aquatic themed. Presenting a song every Central Canadian Air Cadet learned to sing word for word:
  6. So basically they can stand on the dock the ship is moored to but no further. Interesting.
  7. I love the first track. That part near the beginning with the vocals gets me every time. So based on what I know of the VBs they are the ship and the ship is them so they are indeed a kind of avatar of the ship. Do they need human crews or can they run without them though? I assumed that the Belle could operate her body herself, one mind controlling all aspects of a ship which is one reason for their superior performance in battle, other than the other stated reasons of greater durability and more effective weapons.
  8. So there's something I've been wondering about the Belles. How big are they? They're the spirits of warships so do the warships themselves suddenly turn into Belles or are the Belles merely their avatar. If that's the case then is the "equipment" on them just accessories? If this is the case then are the avatars normal human sized and can walk anywhere humans do just like the Mental Models from Arpeggio of Blue Steel? Or alternatively are they more like the girls from KanColle and are human sized wandering about the sea as ships would or are they as big as their original ships were? For example If a destroyer is 100m long will the Belle be 100m tall? Will she always be this tall or only this tall when she heads out to sea? Sorta like Blood-red Tide here showing Kaga and her captain. Are all these speculations left to the opinions and imaginations of the players and fans? Is there actually something written that tells us this? Will they be giantess upon the sea like in Blood-red Tide as seen above or more like Mental Model-esque avatars like my lovely Haruna here:
  9. But if Hood gets a Belle too then wouldn't she not fight Bismark? Or at least there's a chance she'll survive. This is a time when the course of history is diverging from the original path after all. The Morganas aren't just appearing from nowhere, they're appearing from a different time and reality as well.
  10. Yeah well after the war they were a bit short of Pocket Battleships. Not a lot they could do about that. Considering how much they used actual ships, 2 of which actually were there (HMS Cumberland and HMIS Delhi [HMNZS Achilles]), I think the film is pretty damn good. This was only the 1950s after all.
  11. AGS will probably have an honorable character if she's anything like her last captain. For those who want to see part of the film about the Battle of the River Plate (Although in this film she was played by USS Salem), but it's still great to see WW 2 warships firing their guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIND57pJ19A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzlQS08Cupw
  12. "Etiquette" We do have the internet ya know
  13. I believe they said somewhere in those comments that all or at least most of the carriers will fire planes from their "hand guns". Um, not sure what those things on her head are, though I suppose they could be bows.
  14. Well I have a pretty good book about the about the Imperial Japanese navy during WW 2. It's called "The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War" by Mark E. Stille. I've enjoyed it a lot. I've learned a lot about the IJN doctrines during the war (and their faults) and much about the individual ships and classes of the IJN as well, including the meanings of some of their names. One thing I've noticed is that the IJN had few bespoke aircraft carriers, most of them being conversions and arguably not the greatest conversions either. IJN ships seemed to suffer a great deal from poor damage control and bad designs that made them more susceptible to further damage. In the case of the carriers this was things like placement of fuel storage bunkers and poor ventilation which caused gas fumes to build up, leading to secondary explosions. Something along those lines anyway. Another curious thing was their submarine doctrine of focusing on enemy warships as part of fleet battles rather than commerce raiding like what the U-Boats were doing to great effect in the Atlantic and the Med.
  15. Well chatting in the twitch chat was fun so I came to see what we've got here.
×
×
  • Create New...