Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Raptor on March 09, 2004, 02:52:10 PM
-
Why are their no battleships in Aces High? We have cruisers, destroyers and carriers... but no battleships?
-
I image because at this point there really isn't a need for them. Ship to ship engagements are pretty limited in number as the big focus is on A2A combat.
I would like to see more ships in AH. Would like to see more AI fleets such as convoys and ships in ports to use as targets.
Would also like to see more player controled features for the ships we have, like 5" guns and torpedoes on the destroyers. (We have them alread on the CV & PT respectfully, why not the DD's?).
I imagine you will see a submarine before you see any Battleships but you never know.
!
-
I just want bigger explosions on the CAs big guns.
-
I'd just like some explosion effects that are actually 3D and not cheesy looking sprites.
-
The shock wave produced by the larger bombs is pretty good; if we got a battleship for shore bombardment, those main battery shells could produce such a shock wave as well.
I had heard rumors that one or more of the maps had non-carrier task groups formed around battleships, but perhaps I'm confusing this with Airwarrior3 or MV.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
The shock wave produced by the larger bombs is pretty good; if we got a battleship for shore bombardment, those main battery shells could produce such a shock wave as well.
I had heard rumors that one or more of the maps had non-carrier task groups formed around battleships, but perhaps I'm confusing this with Airwarrior3 or MV.
In CT maps often have CA task forces with 2-3 cruisers and escorting DEs.
Sakai
-
If I'm in a cruiser turret bombarding the shore, and none of the other cruiser turrets is occupied, I'd like those turrets slaved to mine and fire at same target, as the 20mm and machine guns do on the PT's. Perhaps the 5 inch secondaries also, if the turret bears and the target's in range.
-
Now THAT makes good sense.
-
Agreed rasker.
-
Originally posted by Jester
the big focus is on A2A combat.
Except with the above line, I agree with Jester.
Check out the 1st sentence from the helpfile: "Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High."
Hence, furballers' complaints. HTC has designed the game around 1 idea. Can one fly, hunt cons, and never give a whit about winning the war? Certainly. Do some? Yes. Do most? I think not, else bases would not exchange hands as they do; and resets would not exist.
But back to the battleship idea....given the supremacy of airpower over sea power in ww2, Jester's notion that battlewagons simply aren't needed is correct. However, I'd like 'em anyway just for the fun of nailing bases from some 30 miles out (roughly double the range of our 8" guns on cruiser).
to make them viable (along with subs) ai sea resupply per his suggestion of convoys would have to be introduced. I think it would be great fun if those additions were adopted. Nonetheless, the game is great fun as it stands.
-
Seems like the cruisers big guns only fire AP rounds. If this is so, it would be cool to have HE rounds for shore bombardment.
Glove
-
they are HE, other wise that near miss on an ack gun wouldn't kill it.
-
no we need battle ships that you can spawn for a 150 gv perks and it would spawn like the PT boats far away from the fight it would have to cruise in
i think the abilty to spawn ships from PT spawn points would be better then SUB's
the rules for it would be simple
it can not spawn from cv's
it can not spawn right next to the base the spawn point would be out in the sea
not sure about the perks make it higher or lower i dont care but its got to me high
-
o yea i would rather like the spawn ship to be a cruiser not a battle ship
maybe you could make the cruiser 150 gv perks and the battle ship 300 perks
-
If you could spawn a battleship I would imagine it would spawn from a port. Not too many people would be patient enough to sit in the ship for a few hours waiting for it to reach its destination. I think it would be nice to have coordinates on the clipboard. So if there was a gv war or something, a gv could give someone in a battleship coordinates for more precise artilary. Of course this would mean if your in a gv you need to make sure not to give the battleship your own coordinates, and estimate the coordinates of enemy.
I imagine it would be difficult to defend yourself in a battleship because it is such a large target. I think it would be more reasonable to let battleships roam as a task group (no carrier or destroyers with it), and let destroyers be manned and perked. This way if submarines were brought into Aces High then the destroyers could go out and drop depth charges.
-
Heh
Imagine your in a battleship, not an enemy in sight but you're in range of an enemy field.
You ask a gv in the area for cords for a target
He gives you some cords
You then rotate your ship broadside to the target area and let off a full salvo
After a minute you hear the sounds of large cannon rounds hitting your ship, you're then back in the tower.
You then PM the gimp "YOU ****ING NUB CAKE!!!"
He replies "What??"
You "YOU GAVE ME YOUR ****ING CORDS AND THAT MEANS MY ****ING SALVO JUST KILLSHOT ME!!!"
"You owe my 700 perkpoints!!"
Him "whoopsie-spageticoes!"
-
Originally posted by Jester
I would like to see more ships in AH. Would like to see more AI fleets such as convoys and ships in ports to use as targets.
!
download ozkansas main arena map
you will find this there
-
Well now, this then begs the question: if HTC did decide to include the BB's in AH, what class of BB should be modelled?
As a dreadnought freak from way back when I would pick...ummm, err,....I would pick...damn...ok, going back to Fighting Steel and getting my BB jones taken care of.
Later gents.
-
Hey Diablo - got "FIGHTING STEEL" also - not a bad game except if you get too many torps in the water at one time it will crash. Too bad you can't play it online.
If we do get a BB for AH lets pick one that can be used in early as well as late war scenarios in the CT. Doesn't matter for use in the MA as any kind of BB would be correct.
US North Carolina Class would be a good one.
RN Queen Elizabeth or King George V Class.
IJN Nagato Class.
-
USS North Carolina has my vote:D
Most decorated ship of WW2, now docked in Wilmington, North Carolina. Great reason to model this class of ship.
(http://www.fridrichdesign.com/photography/wilmington/ussnorth.jpg)
-
Hey Jester-
I never had that problem with mine. When whatstheirname bought the rights to that game and added other ships the game really came to life. They remodelled the armor, penetration and damage models to make it more realistic. Of all the ships presented, believe it or not, I liked the Alaska class battlecruisers the most. Something about BC's make them more appealing to me. Needless to say I still the the best looking capital ship ever put to sea was the HMS Hood. As for AH I would like to see the Yamashiro's or the Nagato's . Or, we could just settle for the American-flagged KGV's in BF1942 (:rolleyes: ).
I'd also have to say that the USS Texas BB-35 would be nice to but that's because I have as much time on her as I do in AH...actually, I have a LOT more time on her than on AH....but that's no surprise.
-
Hey Diablo,
You got the web-site handy for the expansion ships? Would love to have it - never knew they put one out! If you have, my e-mail link is in my signature below.
Was always "honked off" that they didn't include the USS ARKANSAS BB-33 in the orginal list. Thought it would be cool to fight off one of the German Raiders trying to attack a convoy it was escorting. :D
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
USS North Carolina has my vote:D
Most decorated ship of WW2.
Sorry Raptor, that is a mistake.
The most decorated ship of WW2 (Any Navy, Allied or Axis) was the aircraft carrier U.S.S. ENTERPRISE CV-6. She was awarded the "Presidential Unit Citation", "Navy Unit Citation" plus 20 Battle Stars for WW2 Service.
The Battleship North Carolina only received 12 Battle Stars.
-
I recall the heavy cruisers Minneapolis and San Francisco also received 20+ battlestars.
-
Nope USS ENTERPRISE CV-6 has the most at 20. Even some of the ships that fought in WW2, Korea & Vietnam and received battlestars for the actions cannot beat this figure. It is a real shame she wasn't kept as a monument after the war. A real loss.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject got me curious so I went and did some research on the subject. Listed are the TOP 5 most decorated ships of the US Navy in each class. One priviso when I made up my list was that they had to see service in WW2. The numbers in parenthesis ( )are Battlestars received.
BATTLESHIPS:
1. USS New Jersey BB-62: (16) 9 WW2/ 4 Korea/ 2 Vietnam/ 1 Iraq
2. USS Washington BB-56: (13) WW2
....USS South Dakota BB-57: (13) WW2
3. USS North Carolina BB-55: (12) WW2
4. USS Massachusetts BB-59: (11) WW2
... USS Iowa BB-61: (11) 9 WW2/ 2 Korea
5. USS Tennessee BB-43 (10) WW2, NUC
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS:
1. USS Enterprise CV-6: (20) WW2, PUC, NUC
2. USS Essex CV-9: (17) 13 WW2, PUC/ 4 Korea, NUC
.....USS Ticonderoga CV-14: (17) 5 WW2, 3xNUC, MUC/12 Vietnam
3. USS Yorktown CV-10: (16) 11 WW2, PUC/ 5 Vietnam
4. USS Bellau Wood CVL-24: (12) WW2, PUC
.....USS Cowpens CVL-25: (12) WW2, NUC
5. USS Lexington CV-16: (11) WW2, PUC
.....USS Bunker Hill CV-17: (11) WW2, PUC
HEAVY CRUISERS:
1. USS San Francisco CA-38: (17) WW2
....USS St. Paul CA-73: (17) 1 WW2/ 8 Korea/ 8 Vietnam
2. USS New Orleans CA-32: (16) WW2
....USS Portland CA-33: (16) WW2
....USS Minneapolis CA-36: (16) WW2
3. USS Pensacola CA-24: (13) WW2
....USS Louisville CA-28: (13) WW2
....USS Wichita CA-45: (13) WW2
4. USS Chester CA-27: (11) WW2
5. USS Indianapolis CA-35: (10) WW2
....USS Boston CA-69: (10) WW2
LIGHT CRUISERS:
1. USS San Diego CL-53: (15) WW2
2. USS Cleveland CL-55: (13) WW2, NUC
....USS San Juan CL-54: (13) WW2
....USS Montpelier CL-57: (13) WW2
....USS Santa Fe CL-60: (13) WW2
3 USS Denver CL-58: (11) WW2, NUC
....USS St. Louis CL-49: (11) WW2
....USS Mobile CL-63: (11) WW2
4 USS Columbia CL-56: (10) WW2, NUC
....USS Nashville CL-43: (10) WW2
5. USS Birmingham CL-62: (9) WW2
NOTES:
Only the USN Capital ships are listed above. Many of the Destroyers of the fleet also had large numbers of Battlestars awarded them.
Also, Many of the Allied and Axis Navies ships also had large numbers of battle honors assigned them but except for the Imperial Japanese Navy - they were usually fewer in number than the Allied ships of WW2.
*PUC = Presidential Unit Citation
*NUC = Navy Unit Citation
*MUC = Meritorious Unit Citation
-
Originally posted by Jester
Sorry Raptor, that is a mistake.
The most decorated ship of WW2 (Any Navy, Allied or Axis) was the aircraft carrier U.S.S. ENTERPRISE CV-6. She was awarded the "Presidential Unit Citation" plus 20 Battle Stars for WW2 Service.
The Battleship North Carolina only received 12 Battle Stars.
Does Capt Kirk know his ship was decorated?
I'd be well cheesed off if someone painted my ship! :D
-
Jester-
bud, sorry it took so long to respond. Use this link to the official yahoo group of the company that bought the rights to the code for Fighting Steel. You have to join the group to use the info but it is worth it.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NWS-FSP/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NWS-FSP/)
This is a direct link to the sites that support the game as well:
http://www.naval-warfare.net/content/fs.html (http://www.naval-warfare.net/content/fs.html)
I need to update my game as I haven't played in ages.
As for the custom mission you describe, I made one with the USS Texas escorting some four-stackers to Britain as part of lend-lease only to sight the Bismarck und Prinz Eugen coming out of the fog to the north-north west. It was pretty interesting to watch the results, namely, the Texas gets it's bellybutton handed to it everytime. But it's still fun to watch.
DiabloTX
-
Also Jester, as you well know, the 12 & 14 inch guns of that time period (the USS Arkansas and the USS Texas) were completely obsolete by the time WWII came around. You really have to get in close to use those guns effectively and by the time you get there you're either sunk, have lost 80% of your main battery, or are about to get a hit in your magazine completely ruining your day.
A GREAT battle is putting the Alaska's against Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The former's better guns and range finding equipment vs. the latter's armor makes for a good battle, although the Alaska's usually take it.
-
Nagato was always my favorite Japanese BB, but for a sheer power thing a late war Yamato would be the way to go.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/yamatodeath.jpg)
Nine 18.1in guns.
Six 6.1in guns.
Twenty-four 5in dual purpose guns.
One-hundred-thirteen 25mm AA guns.
Here are some nice pictures of a late war Yamato class BB from the same site as I got that picture:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/shipmodels/japanese_models/yamatomatteini.html
-
If there was ever an example of a total waste of money, resources, and manpower, the Yamato's are it. My god, if you're gonna make the biggest baddest ship ever use them sum*****'s. What a waste...
Nice pic by the way. Like how 70,000+ tons of steel is trying to fight for it's life against a few thousand pounds of stretched aluminum-over metal ribs flown by kids that are still wet behind the ears...and the kids win.
Besides, it all led to Starblazers in the end and it saved Earth from the evil Gamma radiation. Heh...
-
DiabloTX,
Oh, I agree, but they are very impressive looking.
That's pretty much what I got from the picture too, though it might have been intended to be the earlier attempt that she survived.
Now that we are past having to see them as what they were and can think of them as neat potential additions to an online combat game we don't even have to dwell on what a senseless waste they were.
-
I could have sworn I saw that the USS Carolina was the most decorated battleship at the time of its retirement... oh well cant always trust what you read.
-
I would say model the Iowa Class Battleships
They are arguably the best Battlewagons ever made.
I read somewhere they would have given the Yamato clas a real run for the money if not outright beat them do to better fire controll, better radar, and better damage controll.
Plus I think they, and not that crappy Hood are the best looking warships ever.
-
After some quick research, it appears that the Battleship H.M.S. WARSPITE was the most decorated ship in the British Royal Navy with 14 War Honors to her credit.
HMS WARSPITE: (14) 1 WWI/ 13 WWII
-
Originally posted by Karnak
DiabloTX,
Oh, I agree, but they are very impressive looking.
That's pretty much what I got from the picture too, though it might have been intended to be the earlier attempt that she survived.
Now that we are past having to see them as what they were and can think of them as neat potential additions to an online combat game we don't even have to dwell on what a senseless waste they were.
This guy has a great site and I always thought his comparison was thoughtful, if subjective.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Sakai
-
Yeah I have seen that before...I disagree with his armor, main armament and fire-control assessments but overall I think the winner is clear. A very nice website.
-
Looks like he is using an early war Yamato for his examples and the KGV looks a bit light in the AA department.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Looks like he is using an early war Yamato for his examples and the KGV looks a bit light in the AA department.
Actually he calculates both original AA suite and refit suites for Yamato.
Sakai
-
That picture of the Yamato looks a lot like the poster I got with PTO II a decade or so ago....
-
They should model a ship from the oldest Navy to take part in WW2. The Royal Navy. But I am a bit biased.
-
Originally posted by Jester
After some quick research, it appears that the Battleship H.M.S. WARSPITE was the most decorated ship in the British Royal Navy with 14 War Honors to her credit.
HMS WARSPITE: (14) 1 WWI/ 13 WWII
I think this would be a good candidate for modeling. She still has the record for longest distance scoring a hit with main battery...something along the lines of 32,000 yds or so.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I think this would be a good candidate for modeling. She still has the record for longest distance scoring a hit with main battery...something along the lines of 32,000 yds or so.
I would support the USS Massachusetts. "Big Mamie" has 19 battlestars, and a sterling record. shes a floating museum in fall River.
http://www.battleshipcove.org/
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I would support the USS Massachusetts. "Big Mamie" has 19 battlestars, and a sterling record. shes a floating museum in fall River.
http://www.battleshipcove.org/
According to Jester she only has 11. What gives?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They should model a ship from the oldest Navy to take part in WW2. The Royal Navy. But I am a bit biased.
To keep up with the current Essex class CV and Baltimore class CA, you'd need something considerably faster than old Warspite. You would need one of the "fast" battleships. Moreover, the fastest of the fast was the Iowas.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
According to Jester she only has 11. What gives?
what gives is this:
I typed this in as I was talking about my friends 19th wedding anniversary suprise kegger this weekend...my apologies :(
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I would say model the Iowa Class Battleships
They are arguably the best Battlewagons ever made.
I read somewhere they would have given the Yamato clas a real run for the money if not outright beat them do to better fire controll, better radar, and better damage controll.
Plus I think they, and not that crappy Hood are the best looking warships ever.
It would have been real interesting to see a Bismark-Turpitz//Iowa-Missouri fight...The winner gets Yamato-Musashi.
I doub't we'll ever see anything like this, anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
It would have been real interesting to see a Bismark-Turpitz//Iowa-Missouri fight...The winner gets Yamato-Musashi.
I doub't we'll ever see anything like this, anywhere.
Bismarck/Tirpitz were generally second rate ships, little more than updated Baden's dating back to 1916....Iowas would have butchered them. In general terms, Europe produced nothing to compare with the Iowas and Yamatos. Even the KG V class was markedly inferior to the North Carolina class of the same vintage. Note also that the Brits adopted the American radar fire-control suite for their BBs, simply because it produced accurate shooting at ranges far beyond the effective shooting range via optics.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The two most important navies to take part in WWII were the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. Sorry UK, but yours was third.
That being the case, and the fact that the CV group is American, I'd like to see a Japanese BB group.
I've diagramed a couple of ideas. To start with, here are the ship classes that I'd prefer.
Akizuki Class DD
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/akizuk01.jpg)
Displacement:
2,700 tones standard, 3,700 tons full load
Dimensions:
440'3" x 38'1" x 13'7"
Speed:
33 knots
Armament:
8 x 3.9"/65 DP
up to 51 x 25mm AA
72 DCs
Crew:
300
Ships Built:
Akizuki
Teruzuki
Suzutsuki
Hatsutsuki
Niizuki
Wakatsuki
Shimotsuki
Fuyutsuki
Hanatsuki
Yoizuki
Harutsuki
Natsuzuki
Takao Class CA
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/takao02.jpg)
Displacement:
15,781 tons
Dimensions:
661'9" x 68'0" x 20'9"
Speed:
34 knots
Armament:
10 x 8"/50
8 x 5"/40 DP
up to 66 x 25mm AA
16 x 24" TT
Crew:
773
Ships Built:
Takao
Atago
Maya
Chokai
Nagato Class BB
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mutsu01.jpg)
Displacement:
42,850 tones
Dimensions:
725'2" x 113'6" x 31'2"
Speed:
27 knots
Armament:
8 x 16"/45
20 (later 18) x 5.5"/50
8 x 5"/40 DP
up to 98 x 25mm AA
Crew:
1,368
Ships Built:
Nagato
Mutsu
Yamato Class BB (late war)
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/yamato01.jpg)
Displacement:
71,659 tons
Dimensions:
862'10" x 121'1" x 32'11"
Speed:
27 knots
Armament:
9 x 18.1"/45
6 x 6.1"/60
24 x 5"/40 DP
up to 150 25mm AA
Crew:
2,800
Ships Built:
Yamato
Musashi
OK, so those are the ships that I'd like. Here are the fleet suggestions that I have:
Nagato BB Group:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/NagatoBBgroup.JPG)
Yamato BB Group:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/YamatoBBgroup.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Bismarck/Tirpitz were generally second rate ships, little more than updated Baden's dating back to 1916....Iowas would have butchered them. In general terms, Europe produced nothing to compare with the Iowas and Yamatos. Even the KG V class was markedly inferior to the North Carolina class of the same vintage. Note also that the Brits adopted the American radar fire-control suite for their BBs, simply because it produced accurate shooting at ranges far beyond the effective shooting range via optics.
My regards,
Widewing
Absolutely, positively 100% accurate and correct. It would have been more like who would have fought for the right to take on the Iowa's.
IMHO I said Warspite mainly for aesthetics and her war history. I would like to see a BB in AH look like the stereotypical BB, the QE's or the late-war Tennesee/Colorado/New Mexico classes.
I have had the priviledge of serving actively in the U.S.N. while we had BB's in service, namely the USS Iowa, and seeing an Iowa-class underway in the Med. she reminded me more of a thoroughbred than a warhorse. Of course, if you really want to get badass just go for the Montana's that were supposed to be made after the Iowa's. Talk about truly devastating.
-
The two most important navies to take part in WWII were the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. Sorry UK, but yours was third.
Based on what? Without the Royal Navy in the years 1939-1940 the British Isles would have been wide open to invasion. Without the Royal Navy in the Med, Germany would have taken North Africa.
With the Med in Axis hands, you wouldn't have a war.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Based on what? Without the Royal Navy in the years 1939-1940 the British Isles would have been wide open to invasion. Without the Royal Navy in the Med, Germany would have taken North Africa.
With the Med in Axis hands, you wouldn't have a war.
The overall war. The RN certainly played a huge, huge part in WWII. I just think that the American and Japanese navies played a bit bigger of a role.
Those three navies are the only ones even in contention for the top spots though. The fourth place navy is so far back that it isn't even a question.
-
It would suck if AH would combine a Battleship with the cv though. The ack would be murderous! Imagine if you will 2 battleship groups that are running parallel course close together like one of the Solomon maps in h2h. No field that is close to shore would be safe! I would love to watch my bombs fall from the ball turrent of 17 and it would be sweet to see a bb go down!
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I would support the USS Massachusetts. "Big Mamie" has 19 battlestars, and a sterling record. shes a floating museum in fall River.
http://www.battleshipcove.org/
Been there, spent a night in her Junior Officer's Quarters...then- girlfriend and I had some fun in the forward ammunition hold...great trip :aok
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I would support the USS Massachusetts. "Big Mamie" has 19 battlestars, and a sterling record. shes a floating museum in fall River.
http://www.battleshipcove.org/
Been there, spent a night in her Junior Officer's Quarters...then- girlfriend and I had some fun in the forward ammunition hold...great trip :aok
-
sorry guys but if a battleship has to be picked and i like the idea of a "perky" boat/ship that it be the USS Arizona. In tribute to those lost onboard that ship.
-
sorry guys but if a battleship has to be picked and i like the idea of a "perky" boat/ship that it be the USS Arizona. In tribute to those lost onboard that ship.
-
Originally posted by willsmith703
sorry guys but if a battleship has to be picked and i like the idea of a "perky" boat/ship that it be the USS Arizona. In tribute to those lost onboard that ship.
Tributes aside...the Arizona was a Pennsylvania class battleship...at the war's onset the most her 14" guns could hope to do was annoy her Japanese counterparts...granted she (sorta) offset her small 14" guns by carrying 12 of them as opposed to the later BBs' main batteries of 9. However, her max speed was only 21 knots, making her unable to keep up with any sort of carrier group, even the early war ones. Heck, even the damaged Yorktown at Midway could make 20 knots.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Tributes aside...the Arizona was a Pennsylvania class battleship...at the war's onset the most her 14" guns could hope to do was annoy her Japanese counterparts.
Bet the Japanese Navy at the Battle of Surigao Straights didn't think that when those "old" Pearl Harbor Veteran Battleships (all with 14" guns BTW) lowered the boom on them. ;)
-
Bismarck!
always liked that ship :)
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Bismarck!
always liked that ship :)
Sunk by biplane torpedo bombers...how sad
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Sunk by biplane torpedo bombers...how sad
Just about... Bismarck's rudder was jammed by a Stringbag's torpedo. When the Brits found her, she was running in slow circles and HMS Rodney and her cohorts blasted her into a floating wreck. She was finished by torpedos from RN Cruisers.
Actually, Bismarck's shallow armor belt did her in. A hit from the Prince of Wales caused a serious fuel leak, thus requiring the Bismarck to abandon her mission and sail for Brest for repair. It was during that transit when she was attacked by Ark Royal's Swordfish torpedo bombers and disabled.
My regards,
Widewing
-
According to my sources the hit that the PoW scored on the Bismarck that pierced her forward fuel tanks was well forward of the armor belt line.
"Bismarck had received three hits altogether. One had carried away the captain's motor-boat amidships, damaged the aircraft launching gear, landed in the sea beyond without exploding. The second had also struck amidships, penetrated the ship's side beneath the armored belt, destroyed one of the dynamoes, put No. 2 boiler-room and its two boilers out of action, wounded five men by scalding, caused some flooding. The third and most serious hit had struck the port bow about the level of the water-line, penetrated two oil tanks, come out the starboard side without exploding. This hit not only let sea-water into the oil tanks and quantities of oil into the sea, but knocked out the suction valves, and cut off from the engines a further thousand tons of oil." (from http://www.bismarck-class.dk website)
This incredibly lucky hit combined with the Stringbag's torpedo hit simply points out, to me, that Bismarck's luck was all used up on the fatal hit to the Hood.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Bismarck/Tirpitz were generally second rate ships, little more than updated Baden's dating back to 1916....Iowas would have butchered them. In general terms, Europe produced nothing to compare with the Iowas and Yamatos. Even the KG V class was markedly inferior to the North Carolina class of the same vintage. Note also that the Brits adopted the American radar fire-control suite for their BBs, simply because it produced accurate shooting at ranges far beyond the effective shooting range via optics.
My regards,
Widewing
I'm not going to challenge Widewing's information, I never would have considered Bismark second rate, although, it was an early war BB and the Iowas...yeah...good point...thanks for the data!
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Been there, spent a night in her Junior Officer's Quarters...then- girlfriend and I had some fun in the forward ammunition hold...great trip :aok
hehe I know that forward hold, when I worked at the Academy I had nearly free run of the place. I also have pics of her being towed up naragansett bay after getting repaired in 199..something...she even fired a 5" as she passed fort Adams, in newport, RI.
Wish I could find those pics!
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Tributes aside...the Arizona was a Pennsylvania class battleship...at the war's onset the most her 14" guns could hope to do was annoy her Japanese counterparts...granted she (sorta) offset her small 14" guns by carrying 12 of them as opposed to the later BBs' main batteries of 9. However, her max speed was only 21 knots, making her unable to keep up with any sort of carrier group, even the early war ones. Heck, even the damaged Yorktown at Midway could make 20 knots.
All of the pre-war BBs had negligible AA defense. She'd be a sitting duck, literally. Better that the ships got retooled after december 7..had they been sunk at sea we would have had to replace 6-8, nnot only rebuild...
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Absolutely, positively 100% accurate and correct. It would have been more like who would have fought for the right to take on the Iowa's.
IMHO I said Warspite mainly for aesthetics and her war history. I would like to see a BB in AH look like the stereotypical BB, the QE's or the late-war Tennesee/Colorado/New Mexico classes.
I have had the priviledge of serving actively in the U.S.N. while we had BB's in service, namely the USS Iowa, and seeing an Iowa-class underway in the Med. she reminded me more of a thoroughbred than a warhorse. Of course, if you really want to get badass just go for the Montana's that were supposed to be made after the Iowa's. Talk about truly devastating.
I saw the Iowa while she was mothballed in newport, Ri, along with the Forrestal and Saratoga. Do you or anyone have the dimensions on Iowa and Montana class BBs?
-
Iowa class design characteristics:
Displacement: 45,000 tons (standard)
Dimensions: 887' (length overall); 108' 2" (maximum beam)
Powerplant: 212,000 horsepower steam turbines, producing a 33 knot maximum speed
Armament (Main Battery): Nine 16"/50 guns in three triple turrets
Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty 5"/38 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship).
Montana class design characteristics:
Displacement: 60,500 tons (standard); 70,965 tons (full load)
Dimensions: 921' 3" (length overall); 121' 2" (maximum beam)
Powerplant: 172,000 horsepower steam turbines, producing a 28 knot maximum speed
Armament (Main Battery): Twelve 16"/50 guns in four triple turrets
Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty 5"/54 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship)
To get more info on US battleships click here:
-->CLICK<-- (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb.htm)
-
SPECIFICATIONS: IOWA CLASS BB
Displacement: 48,500 tons standard, 57,450 tons war load.
Dimensions: Length: 887', 3" Beam, Overall: 108', 2" Draught: 38'
Machinery: 4-Shaft geared steam turbines delivering 212,000 shp.
(158,088 KW)
Speed: 33 Knots
Armour: Belt: 12'2"(310mm), Decks: 1.5" - 4.7"(38-120mm), Turrets: 18"(457mm)
Armament: 9x 16"/50cal.(406mm), 20x 5"/54cal. DP(127mm), 60x 40mm, 60x 20mm AA guns.
Aircraft: 3 (2 Catapults)
Complement: 1,921 Officers and Men.
NOTE: USS Missouri BB-63 had a slightly heavier displacement and was longer than the rest of the Iowa's.
SPECIFICATIONS: MONTANA CLASS BB
Displacement: 60,500 tons standard; 70,783 tons full load
Dimensions: 925 x 121 x 36.6 feet/281.9 x 36.9 x 11.2 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 600 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 172,000 shp.
Speed: 28 Knots
Complement: 2,149 Officers and Men.
Armor: 10.2-16.1 inch belt, 6-7.35 inch deck, 18-21.3 inch barbettes, 10-22.5 inch turrets, 7.4-18 inch CT
Aircraft: 2 catapults, 3 floatplanes; no hangar
Armament: 4 triple 16"/50cal, 10 dual 5"/54cal DP, 10 quad 40 mm AA, 56 single 20 mm AA
-
Thanks Jester! :aok
-
oops!
Diablo sorry I didnt see your earlier post with same data. My mistake :(
Given the armament for air defense, On one hand I never want to see the BBin AH. OTOH, I't sure would be fun to man those guns against suiciders, et. al!
-
If USS Massachusetts was "Big Mame" and West Virginia was "WeeVee", what other battleships had nicknames? Would North Carolina be "Mean Nancy" [NC}? :)
-
I would rather see BBs than submarines that people keep insisting are coming to AH2. Only thing I would like about submarines is launching torpedos but would be near impossible to hit a moving CV with the lazer guided ack and all.
-
USN WW2 BATTLESHIP NICKNAMES
USS Arkansas BB33: "Old Arky"
USS Texas BB35: "Mighty T"
USS Nevada BB-36: "Cheer Up Ship"
USS Pennsylvania BB-38: "Mighty Penn", "Pennsy", "Old Falling Apart"
USS Mississippi BB-41: "Ole Miss"
USS Idaho BB-42: "Big Spud"
USS Tennessee BB-43: "Big T", "Tenny Maru", "The Rebel (Ship)"
USS California BB-44: "The Prune Barge"
USS Maryland BB-46: "Fighting Mary", "Old Mary
USS West Virginia BB-48: "WeeVee"
USS North Carolina BB-55: "The Showboat"
USS Washington BB-56: "Mighty W"
USS South Dakota BB-57: "Sodak", "Battleship X"
USS Massachusetts BB-59: "Big Mamie"
USS Alabama BB-60: "Big Bama", "Mighty A", "Lucky A"
USS New Jersey BB-62: "Big J", Black Dragon"
USS Missouri BB-63: "Big Mo", "Mighty Mo"
-
All these ideas for more ships, guns & manability is great!
Being a gunner type player in AH I would like to see a lot more {at least what the ship was originally armed with} gun platforms that are manned by players. Single, duel & quad mounts were all very common on the WWII ships.(http://cephas.net/photos/bostontourist2002/DSCN0405.JPG)
I say make it as "real" as possable:eek:
-
Just what you need, Moil, more powerful weapons...
you do just fine with the current model, your request is denied! :)
-
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
-
the TRANSPORT ship would handle the whines about c-47's lack of being able to resupl bases after porking
-
not sure tho about were the transport would spawn im thinking it would spawn like PT BOAT
-
You know there's an edit button ;)
-
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
-
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?
-
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"?
-
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 :D
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.
-
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 :D
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Or better yet, be able to take the fire controllers position and have the guns slaved to it.
-
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"! :confused: I am sure there is a REAL good story behind that one! LOL!
-
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."
-
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.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Actually, some did.
Okay, thanks for the info Diablo :aok I gatheres those wings were vents or electronic targeting assistance.
(watched way too much Starblazers in his youth)
I'll just sit in the corner and keep my mouth shut for the rest of this thread :):lol
-
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016119.jpg)
Who would get to fly the lil airplane on the back?
-
make the plane a b5n, then you can land it again :)
(http://mysite.freeserve.com/mrbd/calanding.jpg)
-
Make it a pontoon zeke...