Author Topic: Battleship versus Cruiser  (Read 1115 times)

Offline GPreddy

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Battleship versus Cruiser
« on: January 14, 2003, 06:47:23 AM »
Someone said they posted a comparision of the AH ships and WWII cruisers. I guess I missed the thread so does anyone have the link?

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2003, 08:17:03 AM »
I don't recall the thread, but I can tell you that we have a Baltimore class Heavy Cruiser. It is armed with nine 8" guns as the main battery, with twelve 5", 38 caliber guns as secondary. As well as 40mm Bofors. Actual ships were fitted with 20mm Orlicon guns as well.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline gofaster

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6622
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2003, 09:36:41 AM »
Most of which ended up scrapped after the war except for four. Two were converted to missile/shore batteries and two were converted to missile/anti-aircraft batteries.

Offline maxtor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2003, 03:20:07 PM »
An actual Battleship would be handy when hitech gets back around to the navy thing (subs and all that).   Would like see Carriers stay in a much more historical mode of operation rather than driving up to beaches like a sea-going tank.

Would also like more manned  large gun positions - particularly on the escorts

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2003, 04:56:36 PM »
gofaster, are you refering to WW2 cruisers?

Offline viking73

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
You sure of the type?
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2003, 07:43:00 PM »
Thought these might be Alaska Class Cruisers with 12" guns.
T2Maw
80th FS {OM-KNIGHTS} Kommando Nowotny {FSO}/{CCS}
S.A.P.P.
Air Warrior 1996, Aces High 2000
Skin Designer

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
where are they now?
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2003, 10:45:02 PM »
I could swear one is sitting in the Philadelphia Navy yard.  You can see it driving up I95...

-blogs

Quote
Originally posted by gofaster
Most of which ended up scrapped after the war except for four. Two were converted to missile/shore batteries and two were converted to missile/anti-aircraft batteries.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Baltimores? Maybe.
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2003, 11:22:18 PM »
I was in on that thread about the cruisers a while back.  "Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2" shows that it could be a Baltimore or Oregon City class.  Both have very similar layouts.  I never get close enough to tell, does it have one or two funnels??  If one, Oregon City.  If two, Baltimore.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Definitely baltimore.
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2003, 11:26:14 PM »
I took the trouble to look, and it's got two funnels.  Baltimore.  Definitely.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2003, 01:24:52 AM »
I'd love to see a Yamato class BB led task force with one or two Takao class CAs plus four to six Kagero / Yugumo class DDs with four troopships to spawn LVTs from.  Couple this addition with removing the ability for CV task forces to spawn LVTs and the CVs could then be used more realisticly for stand off support while the bigger, and better armored, BB task force oversees the close support of the troop landings.


Can you imagine attacking a ship with 150 25mm AA guns, plus her twelve dual purpose 5" guns?

That would be a sight to see.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline viking73

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Ok, look here and make the comparison
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2003, 03:26:28 AM »
First the cruiser. After studying it, it looks to be the Baltimore Class.







Now the carrier. Although the bridge is somewhat squared off, it appears to be a Ticonderoga Class (or Essex long Class).



T2Maw
80th FS {OM-KNIGHTS} Kommando Nowotny {FSO}/{CCS}
S.A.P.P.
Air Warrior 1996, Aces High 2000
Skin Designer

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
pic is backwards...
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2003, 05:08:49 PM »
Did you notice that the island is on the wrong side of that carrier??  Either that, or that CV is steaming backwards at about 15 knots.  The original negative must have been reversed, since all american carriers have the island on the starboard side.  Not your fault, though, Viking.  Good research.

Offline viking73

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2003, 10:10:00 PM »
Ha, didn't knotice that. I could've flipped it if I had saw that. Good eyes.  :)
T2Maw
80th FS {OM-KNIGHTS} Kommando Nowotny {FSO}/{CCS}
S.A.P.P.
Air Warrior 1996, Aces High 2000
Skin Designer

Offline Bluedog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 915
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2003, 11:26:12 PM »
While we are on the subject, could someone please explain to me what the lettering actually means ?
Is CV Carrier Vessel?
Why is a Destroyer a DD? shouldnt it be DST or something?
What about CA? .....CrewsA?
BB??   Big Boat?

I'm a total handsomehunk about Navy stuff, to me a ship is a ship is a ship, and the ocean is no place for a human.(been dragged out of it once too many times for my liking)
I guess I could look all this up myself on the net somewhere, but I kinda like hearing it and learning stuff from you guys.

Thanks in advance.

Blue

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Battleship versus Cruiser
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2003, 12:29:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bluedog
While we are on the subject, could someone please explain to me what the lettering actually means ?
Is CV Carrier Vessel?
Why is a Destroyer a DD? shouldnt it be DST or something?
What about CA? .....CrewsA?
BB??   Big Boat?



Blue



The CV designation is a hold over from the time the US Navy had carriers for both aircraft and airships (blimps).  The V is the Navy's symbol for heavier-than-aircraft and Z is the designation for lighter-than-air blimps.  Since the US Navy no longer operations blimp carriers (CZ), all we have now are CVs.

The reason why destroyers are DDs is because when there isn't a suffix used in the designation, the first letter is repeated.  But what makes it confusing is that at a later date, a suffix can be added to an existing designation, such as DDG (Guided Missile Destroyer).

The letters themselves might not individually stand for anything, it is the designation as a whole that has some assigned meaning or definition.  Adding to the confusion, the Navy can also change the definitions without changing the designation.

Ack-Ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song