Author Topic: Ships  (Read 3027 times)

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Ships
« Reply #75 on: July 20, 2006, 10:35:22 PM »
The KGV's were actually a compromise of various aspects, namely their armamemt of 14" guns would be deemed "adequite" but hardly devastating.  There were relatively fast and stable gun platforms with very good radar/fire control.  On the whole I would rate them 'above average' but certainly superior to the WWI-ear battleships that were modernized.

The Bismarck, I think, suffers from alot of WWII hype.  Like the KGV's it was a relatively fast and stable gun platform with decent main armament.  It's fire control was good, especially it's optical FC but overall it was considered better than average.  I am sure that a Washington or a North Carolina class BB would have bettered the Bismarck or Tirpitz in a one on one duel, but that is just an educated guess.

As far as look go there's nothing more pleasing to the eye than "Mr. Glassjaw" HMS Hood.



"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Ships
« Reply #76 on: July 24, 2006, 02:27:54 PM »
Don't mean to dig up a dying thread, but I thought this article I came across while at work was pertinent to this thread.  Sorry if it is duplicated somewhere else -- don't have time to re-read the entire thread.

http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm

Enjoy
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline mussie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
Ships
« Reply #77 on: July 24, 2006, 02:47:57 PM »
Ya know I would love to see a big prettythang task group on each side with multiple battle ships and 1 or two CV's

Imagine the battles we could have.

Mind you I think that HTC would have to add collisions for NME ships so that if the two or all three of the large task groups entered close conmat turning would become an issue.. (maybe that would just create whine threads though)

Would also like to see amphibious landing craft that could drop off tanks and jeeps but that is not going to happen.....

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Ships
« Reply #78 on: July 24, 2006, 07:39:07 PM »
This is a much more comprehensive comparison of the WWII battleships.  The outcome is the same, more or less, but it goes into much greater detail.  It is quite subjective but he does go into great detail with his conclusions.

Baddest of the bad.

As for fleets in Aces High, I can only imagine the whines generated between the ship discrepencies.  It would be fun though.
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ships
« Reply #79 on: July 25, 2006, 05:22:20 AM »
Nice link Diablo :aok
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Ships
« Reply #80 on: July 25, 2006, 05:55:17 AM »
The Vanguard was the best BB on the Allied side. Yes, even better than the Iowas.

Angus, that 18" at the IWM is from the HMS Furious. The revolving turret and gun weighed a whopping 827tons. The gun weighed 150tons.

In theory, the 3320lb shell had a range of ~30,000yds.

Three guns were manufactured, 2 for the Furious and the other as a spare. After the Furious was converted to a carrier the guns went to the monitors Lord Clive and General Wolfe for shore bombardment in which they proved very successful.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ships
« Reply #81 on: July 25, 2006, 09:01:51 AM »
Good golly!
Were you there Milo? It's bloody well worth it.
And here is a missing point from the BB discussion. (Well, it's covered in Diablos link)
The importance of the fire control and as well, as who scores the first hits is vital.
Once a gun commander is registering hits, the target cannot remain steady for long if there is to be any sense in the business. It has to break.
The Prince of Wales was lobbing shells into the Bismarck, but the ship being brand new and still with carpenters on board, had troubles with the guns. I can't remember which one disengaged, but I think it was actually the Bismarck. She received some 3 (?) hits, - from memory.
The HMS Belfast was a better example though. Hitting the Scharnhorst with her little 6" guns, she forced Scharnhorst to break. Not the big teeth, but good fire control, elite crew (admiral vessel), and high ROF allowed her to track on target much faster. Likely, Scharnhorst could have slugged it mout by moving closer, but at very high cost, if not loss. (other ships).
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline volvo744

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: WE NEED THIS SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #82 on: July 30, 2006, 07:13:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Blixen

+1
I used to watch this MANY years ago. I always thought it was the Arizona, so I guess my whole life is a lie......;)

Offline 007Rusty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
Ships
« Reply #83 on: July 30, 2006, 08:57:37 PM »
its the Argo from Starblazers
C.O. 444TH AIR MAFIA
 WD40 (FS0)