Of Ships and Girls and Shipgirls - a KanColle-RP (OOC)

[Kraicia]

Why is everyone so anti-battleship suddenly?

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

[Kollin]

Why is everyone so anti-battleship suddenly?

Because logic exists.
Seriously, why do you think they arent used anymore? No, its not just cause construction of them was banned. No one would build them anyway.

Why build a giant ass ship costing you probably billions to have it blown up by a 30 million dollar jet whose 20 km away.

Hell, look at Yamato and Bismarck, famed for being so strong! One of them was wrecked by a fucking biplane that cost less than my Civic.

People are anti Battleship cause, well, battleships are bad at their job. Carriers do it better, ruling the seas is their thing.

[Rynagria]

Why is everyone so anti-battleship suddenly?

I’m not anti-battleship.

We’re just saying that if you had a choice between an M4 Carbine and an M1 Garand to take in modern combat, you’d acknowledge that the M1 while still usable and a great gun is obsolete..... I think.

[Lunas Legion]

Did you seriously just use Vietnam to justify the role of the battleship? Where battleships did the same thing they did for most of the war, bombarding land targets with pointlessly large guns, while smaller ships and aircraft actually did most of the fire support work.

Battleships are far too expensive for just being used for CGS, monitor-type vessels are far better suited to that role. The battleship was completely obsolete as soon as carriers became capable of all-weather operations, although they were of dubious usefulness ever since the introduction of long-range submarines and good torpedoes.

[Sterkistan]

Why is everyone so anti-battleship suddenly?

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

I mean for god sake they brought back the Iowa Class to put their cruise missiles on.

[Sterkistan]

Fine, whatever I lose this argument.

[Kraicia]

With an M4 Carbine, you can comfortably go full auto kick ass from short to medium ranges and carry more ammunition than the M1 Garand (30-06 vs 5.56x45mm); however, an M1 Garand can snipe you at long ranges in the hands of talented/skilled user, and there's the feeling where you can definitly knock someone down with the M1 Garand's ammunition (30-06).

[Lunas Legion]

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

I mean for god sake they brought back the Iowa Class to put their cruise missiles on.

Because Reagan wanted something that looked like a counter to the Kirovs, not out of any real tactical or strategic need.

[Kraicia]

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

I mean for god sake they brought back the Iowa Class to put their cruise missiles on.

That's true, and considering that it was much cheaper to produce more shells than cruise missiles; however, that was only effective when your around the coast.

[Sterkistan]

I mean for god sake they brought back the Iowa Class to put their cruise missiles on.

Because Reagan wanted something that looked like a counter to the Kirovs, not out of any real tactical or strategic need.

Honestly that's probably the reason for most American things.

[Kollin]

Why is everyone so anti-battleship suddenly?

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

No, it isnt inconclusive from every single side. Not even close.
Any modern AShM used today would shred any Battleship that still exists or could be built.

Except, you take dozens of those shells (remember, misses happen) to kill a target. It only takes one plane with one missile to sink a ship, even a big one.

[Sterkistan]

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

No, it isnt inconclusive from every single side. Not even close.
Any modern AShM used today would shred any Battleship that still exists or could be built.

Except, you take dozens of those shells (remember, misses happen) to kill a target. It only takes one plane with one missile to sink a ship, even a big one.

Despite all the arguments against it it's still not fair to permanently ground 6-7 battleship characters because you 'didn't like battleships.' Like it seems some want to.

[Lunas Legion]

Battleships and Carriers are cool either way, depending on how you use them.

With a battleship, you have shells that are much cheaper to produce than a plane, and you have armour to withstand multiple explosions and hits all at once - along with the unconfirmed myth that you can withstand missiles (an argument that lingers with inconclusive results from every side).

With a carrier, you have airplanes to launch attacks more than hundreds to thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and you can launch helicopters - though you got to take in mind that the runway is a gigantic target for the enemy once they know where you are.

No, it isnt inconclusive from every single side. Not even close.
Any modern AShM used today would shred any Battleship that still exists or could be built.

Except, you take dozens of those shells (remember, misses happen) to kill a target. It only takes one plane with one missile to sink a ship, even a big one.

Eh, depends on a whole bunch of factors really. A Granit, any nuclear-warheaded AShM or any anti-CV AShM would obliterate a BB, but smaller missiles designed for use against smaller ships might only heavily damage one depending on where they'd strike. Problem is that you can mount those big missiles on tiny ships, so BBs aren't cost-effective for the amount of firepower they could have per ton.

[Kollin]

No, it isnt inconclusive from every single side. Not even close.
Any modern AShM used today would shred any Battleship that still exists or could be built.

Except, you take dozens of those shells (remember, misses happen) to kill a target. It only takes one plane with one missile to sink a ship, even a big one.

Despite all the arguments against it it's still not fair to permanently ground 6-7 battleship characters because you 'didn't like battleships.' Like it seems some want to.

I never said ground them, and i don't care if others want to do so.
My point is that this is the age of the carrier, and Battleships are becoming more and more obsolete by the moment.

[Lunas Legion]

Despite all the arguments against it it's still not fair to permanently ground 6-7 battleship characters because you 'didn't like battleships.' Like it seems some want to.

I never said ground them, and i don't care if others want to do so.
My point is that this is the age of the carrier, and Battleships are becoming more and more obsolete by the moment.

Unfortunately, we don't exactly have the luxury of building a fleet around a doctrine, we have to make do with what we have, and we happen to have lots of BBs.

[Legatia]

This RP is based in a near World War two era when battleships still had potent capabilities. Guided missiles and jet aircraft were not in massive production yet, and there was incredibly little naval applications for them. There was still a need for pure firepower in naval engagements, and battleships provided that role and this was the last era they could do so before carrier technology outpaced them. Now if every single one of our carriers rushes forward and says that there's "experimental" technology and wunderwaffes on board, then yes, carriers are outdated. But let the battleship characters have some action too. This is a roleplay, not a naval tactics think-tank. We're here to have fun and not to push logic, which has already gone out the door when you let girls have control of weapons and armaments of multi-thousand ton vessels and we have world war two era soldiers flying around on jetpacks.

[Rustyal]

Alright, as Co-Op, I'm gonna say that you all need to cool it.
We get it. Carriers work better today.
This RP is not today.
Nor is it normal.
This is goddamn Kancolle. Battleships are effective as all hell. Mind you, it's also 1950, only 5 years after WW2. Take it upon yourselfs to use some other form of communication to argue about why battleships are effective.

[Kollin]

This RP is based in a near World War two era when battleships still had potent capabilities. Guided missiles and jet aircraft were not in massive production yet, and there was incredibly little naval applications for them. There was still a need for pure firepower in naval engagements, and battleships provided that role and this was the last era they could do so before carrier technology outpaced them. Now if every single one of our carriers rushes forward and says that there's "experimental" technology and wunderwaffes on board, then yes, carriers are outdated. But let the battleship characters have some action too. This is a roleplay, not a naval tactics think-tank. We're here to have fun and not to push logic, which has already gone out the door when you let girls have control of weapons and armaments of multi-thousand ton vessels and we have world war two era soldiers flying around on jetpacks.

Yeah, they weren't very potent even in World War 2. Carriers dominated the war, air power in general dominated the war. It only took one plane with one torpedo to put your battleship into its death throes. That's not potency.

I never said ground them, and i don't care if others want to do so.
My point is that this is the age of the carrier, and Battleships are becoming more and more obsolete by the moment.

Unfortunately, we don't exactly have the luxury of building a fleet around a doctrine, we have to make do with what we have, and we happen to have lots of BBs.

I mean if the enemy doesnt have a shitton of carriers youre fine.

[Legatia]

This RP is based in a near World War two era when battleships still had potent capabilities. Guided missiles and jet aircraft were not in massive production yet, and there was incredibly little naval applications for them. There was still a need for pure firepower in naval engagements, and battleships provided that role and this was the last era they could do so before carrier technology outpaced them. Now if every single one of our carriers rushes forward and says that there's "experimental" technology and wunderwaffes on board, then yes, carriers are outdated. But let the battleship characters have some action too. This is a roleplay, not a naval tactics think-tank. We're here to have fun and not to push logic, which has already gone out the door when you let girls have control of weapons and armaments of multi-thousand ton vessels and we have world war two era soldiers flying around on jetpacks.

Yeah, they weren't very potent even in World War 2. Carriers dominated the war, air power in general dominated the war. It only took one plane with one torpedo to put your battleship into its death throes. That's not potency.

Battleships were only definitely in danger when the enemy had air superiority and alone. See Bismarck, sunk by Royal Navy aircraft after loosing its escort, and see Yamato, sunk by USN aircraft after having its escort destroyed and being overwhelmed by planes attacking it. When battleships have sufficient enough cover (as they did most of the war), they're (while by no means juggernauts) able to dish out some serious firepower.

And no, it does not take one plane with one torpedo to kill a battleship and if you think that way you're quite oblivious. Carriers had to send attacks in waves to get enough planes with enough torpedoes to saturate AA fire to put a number of torpedoes on battleships. Yamato, i believe , took 4-5 torpedo hits before it started to sink. That's also considering Yamato was sent on a death run and was essentially doomed to die, with the US able to field 11 aircraft carriers- one more carrier than the Yamato task force had ships.

[Kollin]

Yeah, they weren't very potent even in World War 2. Carriers dominated the war, air power in general dominated the war. It only took one plane with one torpedo to put your battleship into its death throes. That's not potency.

Battleships were only definitely in danger when the enemy had air superiority and alone. See Bismarck, sunk by Royal Navy aircraft after loosing its escort, and see Yamato, sunk by USN aircraft after having its escort destroyed and being overwhelmed by planes attacking it. When battleships have sufficient enough cover (as they did most of the war), they're (while by no means juggernauts) able to dish out some serious firepower.

And no, it does not take one plane with one torpedo to kill a battleship and if you think that way you're quite oblivious. Carriers had to send attacks in waves to get enough planes with enough torpedoes to saturate AA fire to put a number of torpedoes on battleships. Yamato, i believe , took 4-5 torpedo hits before it started to sink. That's also considering Yamato was sent on a death run and was essentially doomed to die, with the US able to field 11 aircraft carriers- one more carrier than the Yamato task force had ships.

I'm not oblivious, you just want to deny reality.
The enemy doesn't need air superiority. See, the battle of Midway. Where enemy carriers, destroyers, battleships and the like ALL TOOK HITS despite the battle for air superiority being VERY undecided as of yet.

So, ah, no. You are still wrong. They're in danger so long as the enemy carrier force can even match there's for any degree of time. Sorry, your giant piece of steel is ineffective against a small one that flies through the air. That's just how it works.

Unless, of course, you think that air strikes arent launched while air superiority is being fought for. But then, you're a tard talking down to me calling me 'oblivious' who has never heard of, well, Midway is the most famous example of your statement being wrong.

But hey, google is a click away, dont take my word for it!

[New Antonalia]

Did you seriously just use Vietnam to justify the role of the battleship? Where battleships did the same thing they did for most of the war, bombarding land targets with pointlessly large guns, while smaller ships and aircraft actually did most of the fire support work.

Well, to be fair Ark, there were still ship to ship engagements in WW2, which is when a lot of our ships were "designed" to be used in. And I personally think that for this RP there is still a use for battleships, not in a modern setting though because ASMs would eat BBs alive.

[North Arkana]

The Iowa's were brought back for Tomahawks because Tomahawks were huge and VLS didn't exist yet. Now that VLS exists the refitted Iowas have no purpose anymore.

Alright, as Co-Op, I'm gonna say that you all need to cool it.
We get it. Carriers work better today.
This RP is not today.
Nor is it normal.
This is goddamn Kancolle. Battleships are effective as all hell. Mind you, it's also 1950, only 5 years after WW2. Take it upon yourselfs to use some other form of communication to argue about why battleships are effective.

I'd expect the co-op to use a more reasonable ship...

[Kollin]

The Iowa's were brought back for Tomahawks because Tomahawks were huge and VLS didn't exist yet. Now that VLS exists the refitted Iowas have no purpose anymore.

Alright, as Co-Op, I'm gonna say that you all need to cool it.
We get it. Carriers work better today.
This RP is not today.
Nor is it normal.
This is goddamn Kancolle. Battleships are effective as all hell. Mind you, it's also 1950, only 5 years after WW2. Take it upon yourselfs to use some other form of communication to argue about why battleships are effective.

I'd expect the co-op to use a more reasonable ship...

Oh please, reasonable isn't the right word.
How about physically possible.

Because that ship wouldn't move. Unless you tore it apart and moved it in pieces.

[Rustyal]

The Iowa's were brought back for Tomahawks because Tomahawks were huge and VLS didn't exist yet. Now that VLS exists the refitted Iowas have no purpose anymore.


I'd expect the co-op to use a more reasonable ship...

Oh please, reasonable isn't the right word.
How about physically possible.

Because that ship wouldn't move. Unless you tore it apart and moved it in pieces.

I repeat myself: this is Kancolle. Quit plotholing obvious things. Are you here to RP, or are you here to be upset about everything? Because I just saw you post three apps, and it very well seems like you want to do the latter over the former.

The other battleship I would use is still of humongous proportions. I even got clearance from Selkie to see if I could use my super-ship. So. That's a thing.

[Kollin]

Oh please, reasonable isn't the right word.
How about physically possible.

Because that ship wouldn't move. Unless you tore it apart and moved it in pieces.

I repeat myself: this is Kancolle. Quit plotholing obvious things. Are you here to RP, or are you here to be upset about everything? Because I just saw you post three apps, and it very well seems like you want to do the latter over the former.

The other battleship I would use is still of humongous proportions. I even got clearance from Selkie to see if I could use my super-ship. So. That's a thing.

Kancolle might be different, but its not completely devoid of all reality. Alot of reality, yes. Not all of it.

Your ship, is literally impossible. Which breaks the rules of Kancolle, because a ship has to exist to be a ship girl. But, yours is completely 100% physically impossible. It could never be built, ever, or used in combat. It wouldn't be able to move. The only thing you can use her for is if we're fighting in range of the drydock she's at cause she ain't goin to sea

Why you presume everyone is angry just because they disagree with you? Is that how you try to break their arguments, by making them look like raging nutters? I could understand why, because you don't have anything to counter with, because even you know it's impossible.

But hey, i'll be honest. I'm not perfect. I have a Heavy Cruiser with a max speed of 40 knots, now thats a little crazy. No lying bout that, it's realistically possible, just hilariously difficult to do. But, there's some reality to it. Because some people like to think that fantasy doesnt mean devoid of logic.

Coincidentally, that's what alot of RPers think it is - devoid of logic = fantasy, in their minds. This is why it does. Because you.

and its not like you couldn't make it theoretically possible, either. with its size there's more than enough space for engines that could make it capable of moving, you know. It'd just cost you $15 million to turn it on, is all XD