Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Similar to all ships are a minesweeper, some get to do it again.
 
Send key settings please
Do try to keep up. He's saying that the phrase "All ships are submarines ..." (the previous post) is very much like the phrase "All ships are minesweepers ..." with the same caveat that some lack the ability to perform the function more than once.
 
40FE0F68-AC60-4915-A59E-B99EC3B15FE4.jpeg
 
Fitted for but not with gone mad. Never mind missiles, they haven't even paid for a stern this time :D
 
Size = cost. This is a great move. We get all the performance of the front end and still save money.

Bigger picture, and all that.

I suppose a complete inability to go to sea would reduce the through-life costs and improve crew harmony figures...
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Size = cost. This is a great move. We get all the performance of the front end and still save money.

Bigger picture, and all that.

But is the front half plugged into the neural net?

Otherwise we'd be better off with a River class to fight the Battle of the Medway.

Apparently.
 
not far off the size of HMS Belfast which was a Heavy Cruiser back in the day
No she was a light cruiser.

Up top 6in gun main arnament - was a light cruiser*
over 6 in was a heavy cruiser

And yes that does mean many light cruisers weighed more than heavy cruisers


- there was also by treaty a 10K Ton weight limit but there was allways a certain amount of creative accounting on that. But even the larger later non treaty 6 inch armed ships were still classed as light cruisers
 
Last edited:
No she was a light cruiser.

Up top 6in gun main arnament - was a light cruiser*
over 6 in was a heavy cruiser

And yes that does mean many light cruisers weighed more than heavy cruisers


- there was also by treaty a 10K Ton weight limit but there was allways a certain amount of creative accounting on that. But even the larger later non treaty 6 inch armed ships were still classed as light cruisers

You are quite right, HMS Belfast was/is a light cruiser.

But with nit-picking hat on, it's "displaced" rather than "weighed".
 
You are quite right, HMS Belfast was/is a light cruiser.

But with nit-picking hat on, it's "displaced" rather than "weighed".

As were going down the pedantic / semantic route

Is not displacement not calculated on warships by what they weigh
Tankers by tonnage they carry
Others by what they displace
and pax vessels by M3

Edired for clarity @Wightsparker - is what i should have written - rather than seeming to argue about use of displacement - my fault - another of those i know what i mean moments
 
Last edited:
As were going down the pedantic / semantic route
Are not warships measuderd by what they weigh
Tankers by tonnage they carry
Others by what they displace


It is a pretty complex subject, with all sorts of definitions depending on the conditions applied. Merchant ships examples include deadweight or gross or net register tonnage, which can vary considerably for the same ship.

With warships, standard displacement is basically a ship ready for sea as a fighting unit, fully equipped with ammunition and stores, but excluding fuel. Full load displacement is a ship ready for sea as a fighting unit, fully equipped with all fuel, stores and ammunition.

The point I was trying to make, and I had hoped to do so gently, was that the tonnage of warships isn't considered as "weight" - the term used is "displacement." Apologies if this seemed pedantic, but it is the way it's done.
 

Latest Threads

Top