Most important Ironclad/Battleship Engagements

AntEater · 05-13-08, 03:55 PM

Dang, forgot Lissa
Problem with the 19th century stuff is that the classifications were rather murky. You could classify Huascar as a gunboat, but in terms of relative power she was (is) a battleship. Same for Lissa: officially, nearly all vessels taking parts were steam "sloops" or "frigates" while the only ship of the line was unarmoured wooden SMS Kaiser. The frigates and sloops were of course much more powerful and better armed, but somehow there was a reluctance to call ironclads "ships of the line" until about 1890 or so.

Sometimes I ask myself wether we have approached the same situation right now with modern fighter aircraft:
- everybody has them, but they're hardly used for their intended purpose (fighting each other)
- they capture the imagination of writers
- the premier power using them (Royal Navy with Ironclads, USAF/USN with modern fighters) is so dominant that their opponents mostly leave theirs unused even in wartime.
- the most advanced technology available is used to build and develop them
- they're terribly expensive

Jacky Fisher · 05-13-08, 04:03 PM

nothing says 'BADASS' like a gun that can fire a shell the size of a Volkswagon beetle nearly 20 miles.

I'd be scared of a fleet with ships named Dreadnought, Victorious, Formidable, and Iron Duke...

unless I had some subs

Tchocky · 05-13-08, 04:05 PM

For the strategic effect of a single powerful battleship, don't forget the Tirpitz.

CaptHawkeye · 05-13-08, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchoky

For the strategic effect of a single powerful battleship, don't forget the Tirpitz.

More like "a prime example of how badly World War 2 went for the Royal Navy."

Personally, i've always hated the "our battleship makes them scared and paranoid" logic for Fleet in Being. Sorry, but if the only usefull purpose for your battleship is to serve as a distraction, then it's just a massive waste of resources that could have been put to far better use elsewhere.

05-13-08, 03:55 PM	#1
AntEater Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 936 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Dang, forgot Lissa Problem with the 19th century stuff is that the classifications were rather murky. You could classify Huascar as a gunboat, but in terms of relative power she was (is) a battleship. Same for Lissa: officially, nearly all vessels taking parts were steam "sloops" or "frigates" while the only ship of the line was unarmoured wooden SMS Kaiser. The frigates and sloops were of course much more powerful and better armed, but somehow there was a reluctance to call ironclads "ships of the line" until about 1890 or so. Sometimes I ask myself wether we have approached the same situation right now with modern fighter aircraft: - everybody has them, but they're hardly used for their intended purpose (fighting each other) - they capture the imagination of writers - the premier power using them (Royal Navy with Ironclads, USAF/USN with modern fighters) is so dominant that their opponents mostly leave theirs unused even in wartime. - the most advanced technology available is used to build and develop them - they're terribly expensive __________________

05-13-08, 04:03 PM	#2
Jacky Fisher Loader Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: on the bridge of the Dreadnought Posts: 82 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	nothing says 'BADASS' like a gun that can fire a shell the size of a Volkswagon beetle nearly 20 miles. I'd be scared of a fleet with ships named Dreadnought, Victorious, Formidable, and Iron Duke... unless I had some subs __________________

05-13-08, 04:05 PM	#3
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	For the strategic effect of a single powerful battleship, don't forget the Tirpitz. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]