|
Nikademus -> RE: History of the DD (8/17/2004 5:32:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Before WWI there was no such ship as the Destroyer. The Dreadnought was the ultimate weapon. Then one was sunk by a motor torpedo boat.
The Birth of the Destroyer. (Full name Motor Torpedo Boat Destroyer)
Sorry Cyberwop, don't know how I missed your post. I'll change mine to "What he said"
Because DD made MTB some what ineffective. The DD was modified to fill the role of the MTB (was armed with torpedos) Then the submarine further broadened it's role (it was given depth charges)
Now a new ship was required to combat the DD. The CL arrived. Then something to combat the CL the CA appeared. Now the BB had something other then enemy BB. The circle was complete and the BB began to grow larger again. Then some whacko figured airplanes could sink ships cheaper then ships could sink ships so the CV arrived. All the ships exposed to air attack now became escorts for their own CV. After this all ships that could not defend against enemy air or submarine threats vanished.
One should not confuse an MTB or PT with an early Torpedo boat. Before/during WWI there tended to be not too great a difference between a TB and a "Torpedo boat Destroyer". as the Destroyer's full name was called. DD's tended to be a little bit bigger depending on class and carried either more or bigger guns for the purpose of warding off the TB's. A PT is a different kettle of fish.
Just to be anal on a Tues morning. the CL did not evolve due to the DD nor did the CA evolve from the CL. the proto-"Light cruiser" developed due to the need for fleet "Scouts", a role that the old slow AC (Armored cruisers) could not fullfill. CA's evolved from AC's, made obsolete initially by battlecruisers but then evolving as a result of the Washington treaty which laid down solid definitions of what would constitute a "light cruiser" and a "heavy cruiser" (i.e. it's main armament)
Effectiveness of PT's has been discussed before. Historically they were not greatly effective, their extremely small size limited their effectiveness unless the sea was calm or attacking in a sheltered area. As far as the game engine is concerned, the only problem i "see" is that like transport combat, the engine treats PT combat in the same generic way when in fact it is quite a different type of fight. A wildy maneuvering PT, with a low field of visibility (due to spray, manevering, lack of sophisticated fire control, and low silowette) is not going to be as effective a FC platform as a blue water DD.
Another signifigant difference....was how the PT arament was set up. Most had two TT's but often you could only fire one at a time, then you would have to try set up another shot.
The targeting routines seem to be set up to attempt attack on priority ships too. PT's would most likely end up attacking fringe/escort elements much of the time so there should be more DD/PT interaction. In the game the PT's tend to get consistant cracks at CV's and BB's no matter how many escorts you arrange.
Personally i'd like to see build limits too. Brady i believe mentioned the US only built a total of 500 PT's yet you can easily have that many in the SRA at war's start in no time flat....whether Dutch or US.
|
|
|
|
