Haha, no - I'm not sure what that is, but I'm pretty sure that's not part of the sub.
Not a bad guess, but no.
This is clearly a tough one, so here's something to help speed things along - it was built in Monfalcone.....
Pick the ship
- Thread starter Axe99
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Haha, no - I'm not sure what that is, but I'm pretty sure that's not part of the sub.
Not a bad guess, but no.
This is clearly a tough one, so here's something to help speed things along - it was built in Monfalcone.....
no looks more like a archimede-class
don´t know if it is the spanish or the british vessel
don´t know if it is the spanish or the british vessel
Marcelo Class Submarine??? I really have no clue
Close, but it wasn't operated by the Italians, just built. It's been up for a day now, so I think I'll post the answer and move on to a ship that's a bit easier to ID
. It was the Turkish Sakarya class (class of one) submarine, built by CNT in Monfalcone and very similar to the Italian Argonaute class. Good guessing though, I think the subs are particularly hard to pic, as they often don't have quite as many distinguishing features.Here's another one - this vessel served in the HoI4 time period under a different name to which it was originally commissioned. It's original name started with a 'G'....
SMS Goeben? Who decided to build the bridge on the funnel anyway? Wouldn't that cook the crew?
- 1
Aye, that's the one - and it is a novel design! Looking back through some of the German BBs during the WW1 timeframe, they built a few like this. I wonder what it was like? I guess serving in the North Atlantic maybe the extra heat wasn't all bad. That said, given where this vessel served during WW2, it may not have been as comfortable. Any takers on the name and country of the ship from 1936-48?
Turkey as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire operated the ship during HoI4 timeline, under the name of Yavuz.
Another ship to pick, should be an easy one for the ship nerds in this thread, clue: look at my big bad gun.
.jpg "Sub (2).jpg")
Another ship to pick, should be an easy one for the ship nerds in this thread, clue: look at my big bad gun.
- 2
That Surcouf was something else, twin 8" guns in a sub!
Here's another one, this ship had the best aircraft/tonnage ratio of any CV, CVL or CVE in the period.
Here's another one, this ship had the best aircraft/tonnage ratio of any CV, CVL or CVE in the period.
That huge 4 is a dead giveaway and she only needs 200-ish tonnes per aircraft. Superb ratio and I shall say no more.
- 1
USS Ranger, CV-4 and the first US carrier designed to be one from the keel up, IE not a conversion like Langley, Lexington and Saratoga. She was small and slow (by WW2 carrier standards) but in the Atlantic she proved that having any carrier beats having no carrier.
Speaking of Surcouf, has anyone seen the British WW1-era M-class submarines?
Navies did lots of screwy things with bridges, masts and observation posts (rangefinder/gun director points). Some of the British Grand Fleet ships had the foremast (with the observation post) behind the first funnel. And yes, the crews were blinded, asphyxiated and cooked by exhaust gases. So they moved the masts - and then one class later put them back in the same place. Masts are heavier than they look, and because of their height and weight you can't always put them where you want. But the 'champion' of bridge-construction-gone--mad would have to be the Japanese Fuso class.
For me, the most interesting is the US Navy's love-affair with lattice (basket or cage) masts. From 1904 to the early 1940s all US capital ships were built with or refitted to have masts made of spiral--wound metal. Supposedly these were lighter and stronger than a conventional mast, and more shock-absorbing, which is important when you mount the range-finders and gunnery observation posts on them.
They were never completely successful. One weakened mast bent over when USS Michigan hit a bad storm (see here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h46000/h46283.jpg). There were extenuating circumstances, but other ships began to show metal fatigue in their masts, partly from the corrosive effects of coal and oil smoke. When the US sent ships to join the Grand Fleet in WW1 they closely examined British tripod masts and the lattice mast was eventually discarded. Some US battleships still had 'cage' masts at Pearl Harbor. Can anyone name two?
Speaking of Surcouf, has anyone seen the British WW1-era M-class submarines?
Navies did lots of screwy things with bridges, masts and observation posts (rangefinder/gun director points). Some of the British Grand Fleet ships had the foremast (with the observation post) behind the first funnel. And yes, the crews were blinded, asphyxiated and cooked by exhaust gases. So they moved the masts - and then one class later put them back in the same place. Masts are heavier than they look, and because of their height and weight you can't always put them where you want. But the 'champion' of bridge-construction-gone--mad would have to be the Japanese Fuso class.
For me, the most interesting is the US Navy's love-affair with lattice (basket or cage) masts. From 1904 to the early 1940s all US capital ships were built with or refitted to have masts made of spiral--wound metal. Supposedly these were lighter and stronger than a conventional mast, and more shock-absorbing, which is important when you mount the range-finders and gunnery observation posts on them.
They were never completely successful. One weakened mast bent over when USS Michigan hit a bad storm (see here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h46000/h46283.jpg). There were extenuating circumstances, but other ships began to show metal fatigue in their masts, partly from the corrosive effects of coal and oil smoke. When the US sent ships to join the Grand Fleet in WW1 they closely examined British tripod masts and the lattice mast was eventually discarded. Some US battleships still had 'cage' masts at Pearl Harbor. Can anyone name two?
Last edited:
- 2
Haha, yes, why not wack a 12" gun on a sub?!
Just had a quick look (Conways and Google), Wyoming and Tennessee? Those lattice/cage masks do look distinctive, worth hanging onto for style purposes alone
.The pic below isn't quite in line with the original idea of the thread - this ship wasn't in operation or laid down when HoI4 starts, but this is a picture from 1936-48, but of which ship? It had two deck catapults, and could carry around 50 aircraft.....
Haha, yes, why not wack a 12" gun on a sub?!
Just had a quick look (Conways and Google), Wyoming and Tennessee? Those lattice/cage masks do look distinctive, worth hanging onto for style purposes alone
The pic below isn't quite in line with the original idea of the thread - this ship wasn't in operation or laid down when HoI4 starts, but this is a picture from 1936-48, but of which ship? It had two deck catapults, and could carry around 50 aircraft.....
View attachment 149981
Think we are all using the same book
Ivan I never thought people would get that one, I have never heard of it before I found it in "the book".
I ran out of hard ones and this will probably be solved in less than an hour, provided that if anyone is online...
- 1
Oh, is it a French Dunkerque class battleship? The rear turrets are really characteristic