Author Topic: Battleships? (Read 3002 times)

simshell · « **Reply #75 on:** March 27, 2004, 05:10:25 AM »

the spawn ships would be
TRANSPORT-FREE
DESTROYER-150
CRUISER-250
BATTLE-SHIP-350

sounds good

the players would be able to get perks by transport ship and gv op's

the transport could carry a huge load of gv's with lvt's inside and would carry supl's to the port outside the base if the base got one

so the transport would have say 15 spots for people to join as gv's and the transport would carry a huge load of supl's say 3 cargo box's thats compairing to the c-47's 1 box

simshell · « **Reply #76 on:** March 27, 2004, 05:12:21 AM »

the TRANSPORT ship would handle the whines about c-47's lack of being able to resupl bases after porking

simshell · « **Reply #77 on:** March 27, 2004, 05:13:31 AM »

not sure tho about were the transport would spawn im thinking it would spawn like PT BOAT

BenDover · « **Reply #78 on:** March 27, 2004, 06:26:24 AM »

You know there's an edit button

simshell · « **Reply #79 on:** March 27, 2004, 03:23:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BenDover
You know there's an edit button

sorry i just come up with so many good idea's right after im done with a post

Raptor · « **Reply #80 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:35:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by simshell

so the transport would have say 15 spots for people to join as gv's and the transport would carry a huge load of supl's say 3 cargo box's thats compairing to the c-47's 1 box

Would 15 people really want to join and wait 30 minutes for the ship to reach shore and let them off, or near shore. And If you sank on of these transports with 15 people inside would you get 16 kills? 1 for each gv and 1 for the transport?

Sh00ter · « **Reply #81 on:** March 29, 2004, 03:07:50 AM »

Well if HT wants to model a BB..I'll get all the pictures I can from the USS North Carolina as she's only about a 35 minute ride for me to get there. :-)

BTW here's some trivia......

Does anyone know why the USS North Carolina is called "The Showboat"?

Angus · « **Reply #82 on:** March 29, 2004, 03:58:36 AM »

If we were to get a BB into AH, there are some things to consider.
Firstly, the aiming is different, making tracking systems on individual ships matter less than in RL.
Secondly, the ROF. The really big guns would have more than a minute between salvoes, while the smaller can go down to what, - 30 seconds? The same would apply to the cruisers, - our cruiser has 8 inch guns with rather slow ROF, while a 6 inch gun will fire every 6 seconds or so.
A faster firing gun, although less destructive, will be able to track faster.
Then, as someone mentioned, speed. Our BB will have to be about as fast as our CV. That rules out all the old battlewagons of the RN, unless of course we incorporate Battleship groups for interception and shore poundings.
So, to make us all happy, poor HT will have to model many battleships

Well, my vote would go to the KGV class. Why? Because they are rather average, with a decent ROF, good radar if that were any use, just enough speed, and historically, many ships of that class took part in surface engagements against equally strong ships. KGV vs Sharnhorst, POW vs Bismarck for instance.
BTW, did the US BB's sink other BB's in a BB to BB engagement? Not on the Northern hemisphere, but I'd like to know more about the Pacific.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #83 on:** March 29, 2004, 05:33:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
If we were to get a BB into AH, there are some things to consider.
Firstly, the aiming is different, making tracking systems on individual ships matter less than in RL.
Secondly, the ROF. The really big guns would have more than a minute between salvoes, while the smaller can go down to what, - 30 seconds? The same would apply to the cruisers, - our cruiser has 8 inch guns with rather slow ROF, while a 6 inch gun will fire every 6 seconds or so.
A faster firing gun, although less destructive, will be able to track faster.
Then, as someone mentioned, speed. Our BB will have to be about as fast as our CV. That rules out all the old battlewagons of the RN, unless of course we incorporate Battleship groups for interception and shore poundings.
So, to make us all happy, poor HT will have to model many battleships
Well, my vote would go to the KGV class. Why? Because they are rather average, with a decent ROF, good radar if that were any use, just enough speed, and historically, many ships of that class took part in surface engagements against equally strong ships. KGV vs Sharnhorst, POW vs Bismarck for instance.
BTW, did the US BB's sink other BB's in a BB to BB engagement? Not on the Northern hemisphere, but I'd like to know more about the Pacific.

Let me give you a little lesson here:

BB ROF was 2 rounds/minute. That was standard for BB's during WWII. As for aiming just give us a crosshair and practice and patience will do the rest. We could even have a spotter in the air telling us where our shot went. Maybe we could even get a float plane launcher from a BB? That would be cool.

As for BB vs. BB in the Pacific, look up the Battle of Surigao Straights and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Both involved BB's slugging it out.

As for the requirements that you state, the North Carolina class was far superior to the KGV's and better yet, the Iowa's were the best of all.

Angus · « **Reply #84 on:** March 29, 2004, 07:35:53 AM »

Well, as I said, the KGV class were rather average amongst the better ones

About the ROF, I recall that the 11 inch guns of the German pocket Battleships as well as Scharnhorst/Gneisenau had a much faster ROF than the standard 15 inch Naval gun.
The 6 inch cruiser gun was also quite a bit faster than the 8 inch.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #85 on:** March 29, 2004, 10:52:29 AM »

Might be nice for the BB gunner to have a POV from the the actual location where fire control actually took place. I don't recall the loaders having a window to look out of

maybe one gunner POV for each turret. Might be easier to get a 180 degree view of the forward or aft area of the ship.

Gainsie

BenDover · « **Reply #86 on:** March 29, 2004, 11:02:51 AM »

Or better yet, be able to take the fire controllers position and have the guns slaved to it.

Jester · « **Reply #87 on:** March 29, 2004, 11:58:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sh00ter
Does anyone know why the USS North Carolina is called "The Showboat"? [/B]

Because being the first new Battleship built for the US Navy since the Naval Limitation Treaty she received so much press and was photographed by the news media about everywhere she went.

Now I am really curious about how the Battleship USS CALIFORNIA got the name "The Prune Barge"!

I am sure there is a REAL good story behind that one! LOL!

DiabloTX · « **Reply #88 on:** March 29, 2004, 03:51:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I don't recall the loaders having a window to look out of

Actually, some did. Those "wings" at the rear of most turrets, and especially those in the upper positions on the deck, were in fact manual aiming view finders for manual direction if the turrets lost contact with the FC station or if the FC station was disabled. They were used only as a last ditch effort for aiming if all else failed.

This was taken from HMS Hood site:

"Fire Control: A variety of inputs could be used- The primary directors were the 15 ft/4.6 m rangefinder above the Spotting Top and the 30 ft/9.1 m rangefinder atop the Conning Tower. Additionally, each turret/gun house was fitted with a 30 ft/9.1 m rangefinder and open director sites. Secondary control was normally carried out through "B" turret's sites. Should the need for divided fire arise, "B" turret would control the front two turrets, and "X" the aft two turrets. Should each turret need to fire independently, each could rely upon its own rangefinder and sites. All sites were augmented by various types of auxiliary fire control equipment to include tripod type directors and Evershed bearing transmitters. In 1941, this was further augmented by the incorporation of a Type 284 gunnery radar (range @10 nm/18.5 km). The Spotting Top 15 ft/4.6 m rangefinder was removed when the radar was added. Additionally, a Type 279M radar was fitted that could also provide surface ranging if necessary (range @ 9nm/16.6 km). Inputs from these devices could be fed into Mk V Dreyer fire control tables in the 15" transmitting stations for coordinated fire control."

Jester · « **Reply #89 on:** March 29, 2004, 09:57:51 PM »

DAWN OF ACES (The WW1 Air Combat Sim from the makers of Warbirds) had a feature I wish AH would include. From certain type of aircraft (2 seaters) you could direct artillery fire within so far a distance from artillery batteries. It had a good system where you could send in a position and ask for a "Spotting Round." Depending on the distance it would take several seconds to get there. Once you saw where it hit you could do the "Up 50 and Right 50 till you were on target. Then you could call for "battery fire" and it would cover that whole small area with shells. Once that barage was over you would start the process again. Was really challenging but with practice it could be done.

Would be really great if they would do this in AH. Have Naval Gunfire directed from the fleet by aircraft. You wouldn't have to "hunt and peck" with the current system. If your spotting a/c was driven off your shooting would suffer if you had to direct your shots from the boat.

Just as equal, planes from land bases could spot for shore guns or artillery inland.

As Diablo said it would be cool to have a floatplane catapult off the cruiser to spot with or maybe "L-2 Grasshoppers or Storchs" to do so from land bases.