Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on September 02, 2005, 07:47:00 PM

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: DREDIOCK on September 02, 2005, 07:47:00 PM

Not as part of a CV but with its own group of support ships.

Wold have greater range and fire power be able to launch LVTs but would have no air combat capability on its own other then its own guns.
but have more mannable positions then  CVs


Could be used to work independandly or in support of current CVs

We really should have these

Bismark
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Bismarck.jpg)
(http://www.allwoodwings.com/5-Ships+Boats/04-MilitaryShips/002-Battleships/German-Bismarck-xlarge.jpg)

Yamato
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/japan/battleships/yamato/yamato1.jpg)
(http://www.bismarck-class.dk/shipmodels/model_reviews/japanese_models/pictures/yamatowaldorf/3/yamato_01.jpg)


MISSOURI
(http://united-states-navy.com/bb/bb63_4.jpg)


(http://www.artofthesea.com/models/naval/USSMissouri.jpg)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: DVDA on September 02, 2005, 08:38:29 PM

Great, another Ground vechile to shoot me down!

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: Hoarach on September 02, 2005, 08:55:43 PM

What about the Iowa, got to have those radar locking guns. :aok

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: TDeacon on September 02, 2005, 11:24:03 PM

It will look strange to have task forces with Essex class carriers and Yamato class battleships.   Make them all from the same country at least.

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: KTM520guy on September 03, 2005, 12:39:01 AM

Gots to have the Big Mo

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: DREDIOCK on September 03, 2005, 11:07:38 AM

Quote

Originally posted by DVDA
Great, another Ground vechile to shoot me down!

Anyone who flies close enough to a CV group to be shot down by it without first having the intent on trying to sink it deserves whatevr they get;)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: viper215 on September 06, 2005, 08:50:31 PM

those would be a mother to kill :)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: parin on September 07, 2005, 06:20:02 PM

Might Not Be so Hard to Sink (http://www.ussyorktown.com/yorktown/battleship2.htm) I think it would be a great addition though.

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: Krusty on September 07, 2005, 09:16:29 PM

The Mo had 10 5" battery mounts. 5 each side around the middle super structure. Imagine that. The AI ack alone would be madness (the AI ack alone ALREADY is madness)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: DREDIOCK on September 08, 2005, 01:01:56 AM

Quote

Originally posted by viper215
those would be a mother to kill :)

Imagine that. it taking a mission to kill a battle ship. And not just a single flight of heavy bombers  just like real life;)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: DREDIOCK on September 08, 2005, 01:27:11 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
The Mo had 10 5" battery mounts. 5 each side around the middle super structure. Imagine that. The AI ack alone would be madness (the AI ack alone ALREADY is madness)

Heh, you evr seen any of the WWII footage of attacks on our battle groups?

Purdy durn accurate if ya ask me LOL

Kamakazi (http://www.worldwar2database.com/movies/kamikaze2_T1.mov)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: Wilbus on September 08, 2005, 02:05:08 AM

Quote

Originally posted by parin
Might Not Be so Hard to Sink (http://www.ussyorktown.com/yorktown/battleship2.htm) I think it would be a great addition though.

Did you read through the whole story? ;)

Here is a snip at the end, Editors notes.

Quote

Editors note: On April 7th the Yamato took 12 bombs and   seven torpedo hits within two hours.

Before the final attack the ship had already taken numerous bomb hits and 4 torpedo hits. 2 of the 3 last torpedo hits hit at almost the exact same spot acording to this page and eye wittnes reports, going off at the same time and almost as one explosion.

"Might not be so hard to sink".....? ;)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: SMIDSY on September 08, 2005, 07:23:44 AM

i remember about a year ago HTC experimented with non-cv battle groups. these were fun in the CT. i would take command of one and unleash hell on other fleets with accurate long range gunnery. i am all in favor of putting in the iowas and the man-o-wars of other countries like japan, italy and the united kingdom.

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: DREDIOCK on September 08, 2005, 08:00:11 AM

Im thinking these ships or at least these types of ships played such a big part in the war. And the fame they acheived.
  They almost have to be added.

But they really shouldnt be tied to a CV and should be able to operate on their own

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: Kweassa on September 08, 2005, 09:50:50 AM

Considering the Yamato had no aerial cover whatsoever and still took that much ordnance... with a decent CAP the Yamato probably wouldn't be so easy to sink.

 At least,  It's hard to imagine any other naval ship - be it German, US, Japanese, or the Royal Navy - would take so many hits and still survive as long as the Yamato did.

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: Meatwad on September 08, 2005, 11:59:25 AM

IF BB's get in game, they could be the new ground "deathstar"

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: parin on September 08, 2005, 02:17:45 PM

I will agree air cover would defiantly be a must for any BB group or CV group.

Yea Wilbus, It would not be “to easy” but not to difficult for suicide dive bombing lancs of DOOM. :p

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: McDeath on September 08, 2005, 02:52:18 PM

boom

(http://students.cs.tamu.edu/msurovik/keyhole/iowafiring.jpg)

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: KTM520guy on September 08, 2005, 03:39:35 PM

OH YEAH!!! We gots to have one of those.

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: viper215 on September 08, 2005, 07:12:14 PM

u can see a Golly-geemed sound wave comeing from it
:p

Title: We Really should have these
Post by: viper215 on September 08, 2005, 07:14:16 PM

and our cruiser look like that too


2 8" in the fromt and one in the back