Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Movie on March 24, 2007, 03:33:31 PM
-
HCT you need to add the Yamato superbattleship. Would be great addition to the game.
Length: 256 m (839.88 ft) at water-line
263 m (862.85 ft) overall
Beam: 38.9 m (130.90 ft)
Draught: 10.4 m (34.12 ft)
Propulsion: 12 Kanpon boilers, driving 4 steam turbines
150,000 shp (110 MW) Four 3-bladed propellers, 6.0 m (19.7 ft) diameter
Speed: 27 knots (50 km/h)
Range: 7,200 nautical miles (13,334 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h)
Complement: 2,750
Armor: 650 mm on face of turrets
410 mm side armor, inclined 20 degrees 200 mm armored deck
Armament: 9 x 46 cm (18.1 inch) (3 × 3)
12 × 15.5 cm (6.1 inch) (4 × 3) 12 × 12.7 cm (6 × 2) 24 × 25 mm AA (8 × 3) 4 × 13 mm AA (2 × 2)
Aircraft: 7, 2 catapults
-
Nah. Iowa-class would be the better choice. Yamato may have had the bigger guns,but IIRC they actually didn't pack as much punch as the 16" guns on the Iowas.
Personally, my vote is for the Mighty Mo.
-
Escort CV:
(http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/82636.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Movie
Speed: 27 knots (50 km/h)
Sorry, but it wouldn't be able to keep up with current fleet speeds.
-
wats the current fleet speeds?
-
like20-30mph:rolleyes:
-
only one yamato were made. plus if we had it, it would own all ships
-
The Musashi was very close to a twin to the Yamato. Neither was indestructable.
I'd prefer an Iowa class, but if we had the Yamato/Musashi class, we'd need to have the Iowa class. Of course, most fleets are the same, so whatever one side has, the other most often has the same.
-
Current fleet speeds are 30+, last time I checked.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Nah. Iowa-class would be the better choice. Yamato may have had the bigger guns,but IIRC they actually didn't pack as much punch as the 16" guns on the Iowas.
Personally, my vote is for the Mighty Mo.
No, the 18s hit harder. Just the Yamato's fire control wasn't nearly as good and it's AA wasn't as good.
Still, a Japanese task group built around a Yamato BB with a couple Takao class CAs and some DDs would make a nice BB group addition.
-
But would it be able to go into space? Like the real Yamato I mean.
-
(http://www.thewarpcore.com/db/starships/1701d/yamato.jpg)
Bring the Yamato to Aces High!
:D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No, the 18s hit harder. Just the Yamato's fire control wasn't nearly as good and it's AA wasn't as good.
Still, a Japanese task group built around a Yamato BB with a couple Takao class CAs and some DDs would make a nice BB group addition.
How hard do you need to hit to sink a converted merchant ship? Or
did the Yamato class engage something heavier that I'm not aware of?
-
Yes bring it to AH2!
what we need is for it to cost like 30,000 perk perks.
So it would cost someone almost upto 2-3 years of aceshigh Gv play to afford one.
Then make it so slow and huge a intire base will up to pound it into the sea.
then when it reaches its last frame of animation before sinking,have it say in console "duh i died because im big & stupid"
:t
-
Also, the Japanese 18" shells didn't have near the ballistics and performance of the American 16" guns, so that may have been where I misinterpreted about damage
-
when the yamato sunk it took like 5 waves or 4 cant remember of torpedo and dive bombers. plus the japs manually aimed the 18in. guns
-
I would rather have the Bismarck
-
either one is good very good ships. LOOK AT THIS BEAUTY
(http://history.navy.mil/photos/images/g700000/g704702t.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rino
How hard do you need to hit to sink a converted merchant ship? Or
did the Yamato class engage something heavier that I'm not aware of?
The shells were designed to face more resistance. They were punching in one side and out the other without exploding because the target wasn't tough enough, aka, had no armor.
-
You'd think sailors with the amount of experience the Japanese had
would have realized that carriers are not heavily armored.
-
Yamato herself didn't get an opportunity to engage the carriers. IIRC she turned to evade the torpedoes fired by USS Johnston and for some reason withdrew and didn't reenter the fight. It was her cruiser and destroyer escorts that manage to (BRIEFLY) fire on the jeep carriers.
-
Personally, I'd rather have some Marus more than any other ship.
And I'm a Navy geek.
-Sik
-
I would rather see a German E-boat. I tired of our PT-Boat. I want something else to sail around. Or a U-Boat?
-
Originally posted by Rino
You'd think sailors with the amount of experience the Japanese had
would have realized that carriers are not heavily armored.
They had a lot more armor than converted freighter.
-
The Japanese were will skilled at naval night attacks. Those long, shortly closed eyes of theirs collected so much light from the day, at night it turned there eyes green like cats and they could see in the dark.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
The Japanese were will skilled at naval night attacks. Those long, shortly closed eyes of theirs collected so much light from the day, at night it turned there eyes green like cats and they could see in the dark.
How 'bout you edit yourself quickly and think again before posting something so blatantly derrogatory?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
They had a lot more armor than converted freighter.
Ok, which is it? They weren't armored enough to stop AP rounds from
passing through the ship or they were much more heavily armored than
the ships they were built from?
As Sax pointed out, I was mistaken about the Yamato engaging the
jeep carriers. I still wonder how it can be determined that the 18" shells
can hit harder than the US 16" ones if they were never actually used
against warships?
From the battle at Guadalcanal, we know the 16" ones worked pretty
well against Japanese BBs.
-
We never hit a single Japanese BB with a 16" shell.
We hit lots of Japanese BCs that we called BBs with 16" shells.
Look at the armor on a Iowa or King George V or Bismark or Yamato or Nagato and then look at the armor on the Hood, Repulse and Kongo class ships.
The Hood and Repulse are bluntly BCs. The Kongo's armor is about the same and far below the others I listed.
Just because we called them BBs doesn't make them BBs.
And you seem to have mistaken what I said earlier. There was no contradiction. They were shooting at jeep carriers, completely unarmored. Purpose built CVs had armor. Not BB type armor, but armor.
As to the 18" guns in comparison to the 16", well, we know the range and weight of the shell. Guess which one is heavier? Remember, plunging fire is what kills BBs.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The shells were designed to face more resistance. They were punching in one side and out the other without exploding because the target wasn't tough enough, aka, had no armor.
Nop, All shells on BBs carried explosves, be they AP or not. The Mk5 AP of the Iowa carried a charge of 40.5 lbs of HE, the HC round 153.5 lbs of HE.
It took about half an inch of steel at obligue angles to set off the fuze.
Matt
-
Originally posted by Keiler
Nop, All shells on BBs carried explosves, be they AP or not. The Mk5 AP of the Iowa carried a charge of 40.5 lbs of HE, the HC round 153.5 lbs of HE.
It took about half an inch of steel at obligue angles to set off the fuze.
Matt
Yes, I know they were all explosive. The hulls on the jeep carriers were too thin to set off the 18" shells.
-
Personally, I'd rather have some Marus more than any other ship.
That would be REALLY cool, if they would model the IJN ships with the type 93 Long Lance torps, too.
-
Yes! More convoys to shoot up. Woo!
-
And add torps to the DE
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No, the 18s hit harder. Just the Yamato's fire control wasn't nearly as good and it's AA wasn't as good.
Yamato's 18.1" guns threw more weight than the Iowa's 16"/50 cal guns, but the 16" shells were better designed and offered superior penetration. Basically, it's a wash. In addition, the Iowas were armored with super-hard STS plate, which for a given thickness was superior to the armor of the Yamato. While a bit thinner than the that of the Yamato, the Iowas were just as resistant to penetration. So far, very even.
Thus, with vastly better fire control (radar), the Iowas would almost certainly score first and more often. Therefore, the Yamato would find itself out-gunned by the Iowa. Adding to its woes, the Yamato was 6 knots slower, meaning that the Iowa could dictate the terms of the engagement.
I'm not sure that the Yamato could cope with the South Dakota class either.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I'm not sure that the Yamato could cope with the South Dakota class either.
Or North Carolina class for that matter. NC and the USS Washington mounted the same guns and Fire Control as the Iowa class. Not sure about speed and armor, but should be close.
-
Sheer size plays a large part too. The Yamato class simply could take more than those older classes. The Iowa though....
Well, a lucky hit by either could totally alter the fight. An 18" shell through the fire control and suddenly Iowa is looking at a much harder situation. A Kongo class BC did heavy damage to a South Dakota or North Carolina BB that way.
The Iowa would, of course, have a much better chance at getting that shot.
But the main reason I want the Yamato as a center of a BB task group is to have a non-US task group. It is still a damn fine ship and a great looking one as well.
Oh, FYI, the South Dakota and North Carolina class ships did not mount the same guns as the Iowa class. They were 16", but less powerful. The 16" guns on the Nagato class were a bit more powerful than those on the SD and NC class ships. The ones on the Iowa were better than those on Nagato.
-
The ONLY differences between the 16"/50 and the 16"/45 were range and muzzle velocity. The 45's were only 200 ft/s less than the 50's and the range was 5,445 yds. less. They fired the same shells. The 18.1" shells of the Yamato class were infierior than that that of the Iowas/NC/SD classes as they were optimized for underwater trajectories.
Source (http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_guns.htm)
-
Interesting. Still, he rates the 18.1"s as good as the 16"s, even if only due to sheer size.
And I still think a non-American task group would be a good thing.
-
I find it interesting that the IJN still allocated resouces to these super-BB's even after they had decided the critical importance of CV's over BB's. Yamamoto was against the building of the Yamato's but there wasn't a whole lot he could do about it.
If you like WWII naval surface warfare sims check out Fighting Steel. I've been playing it pretty much non-stop since 2001. You can get it here. (http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/fightingsteel.html). It's not perfect but it's very good. The updates they've come up with have all the BB's found in WWII and some that weren't even made such as the Montana's, the Soviet BB's, the 15" Scharnhorsts, and others. It even has my fave, the Alaska class BC's.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Yes! More convoys to shoot up. Woo!
Attacking and defending transport ships was a major consideration in all theaters of the war. Not having the Transports is a real downer in my opinoin. Though I would guess that some game concepts would have to be changed to implement them. I mean, there's not much point in changing from the DDs we currently have if the Transports are going to be hauling it at 30 knots or so :)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
If you like WWII naval surface warfare sims check out Fighting Steel. I've been playing it pretty much non-stop since 2001. You can get it here. (http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/fightingsteel.html). It's not perfect but it's very good. The updates they've come up with have all the BB's found in WWII and some that weren't even made such as the Montana's, the Soviet BB's, the 15" Scharnhorsts, and others. It even has my fave, the Alaska class BC's.
this is Aces High air,ground, and naval battles! therefore should have naval ships
-
Look at her...
(http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/af_0245_pic3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Oh, FYI, the South Dakota and North Carolina class ships did not mount the same guns as the Iowa class. They were 16", but less powerful. The 16" guns on the Nagato class were a bit more powerful than those on the SD and NC class ships. The ones on the Iowa were better than those on Nagato.
I am aware that the North Dakotas carried the 16"/45 cal guns. Less max range, but same extremely lethal AP shells. These rounds were virtually impossible to de-cap, meaning that they could penetrate the Yamato's thickest armor at long range. The South Dakotas were armored just about as well as the Iowas. Some experts classify the South Dakotas as pound for pound, the best protected battleships ever constructed. Protection is more than simply armor thickness. Besides, the WWII vintage American BBs carried the best quality armor plate on the planet.
An excellent analysis of battleship armor can be found here. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm)
Scroll down to mid page....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Yamato herself didn't get an opportunity to engage the carriers. IIRC she turned to evade the torpedoes fired by USS Johnston and for some reason withdrew and didn't reenter the fight. It was her cruiser and destroyer escorts that manage to (BRIEFLY) fire on the jeep carriers.
Saxman, go to your local library and borrow a copy of Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.
You will not be disappointed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Or just watch "Death of the Japanese Navy" when it reruns bi-weekly in the History Channel.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Or just watch "Death of the Japanese Navy" when it reruns bi-weekly in the History Channel.
Good program, but the book is light years more in depth. Did you know that one of the 5" guns on an escort carrier disabled a Japanese Heavy Cruiser? One 5" into the ready torpedoes.... Knocked out her powerplant. Left her adrift and burning. TBMs later finished off the Chokai. The USS White Plains stern gun crew scored 6 consecutive hits at 11,700 yards. Boom went the torpedoes. Shock and awe, indeed.
Lots of good reading...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Agreed. The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors should be Spielberg/Hanks next mini-series project.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
If you like WWII naval surface warfare sims check out Fighting Steel. I've been playing it pretty much non-stop since 2001. You can get it here. (http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/fightingsteel.html). It's not perfect but it's very good. The updates they've come up with have all the BB's found in WWII and some that weren't even made such as the Montana's, the Soviet BB's, the 15" Scharnhorsts, and others. It even has my fave, the Alaska class BC's.
I loved that game! I thought that it seemed "incomplete," especially when compared to previous SSI titles of the Genre, but what they did, they did right. I've been meaning to slip a bottle of scotch and a copy of that game under HT's door.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We never hit a single Japanese BB with a 16" shell.
We hit lots of Japanese BCs that we called BBs with 16" shells.
Look at the armor on a Iowa or King George V or Bismark or Yamato or Nagato and then look at the armor on the Hood, Repulse and Kongo class ships.
The Hood and Repulse are bluntly BCs. The Kongo's armor is about the same and far below the others I listed.
Just because we called them BBs doesn't make them BBs.
And you seem to have mistaken what I said earlier. There was no contradiction. They were shooting at jeep carriers, completely unarmored. Purpose built CVs had armor. Not BB type armor, but armor.
As to the 18" guns in comparison to the 16", well, we know the range and weight of the shell. Guess which one is heavier? Remember, plunging fire is what kills BBs.
Wasn't some of the older class BB's, or BC's as you call them like the Ise and Fuso, actually bulit by the British in the early 1900s? It seems I read that somewhere once and you're the guy to ask.
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I find it interesting that the IJN still allocated resouces to these super-BB's even after they had decided the critical importance of CV's over BB's. Yamamoto was against the building of the Yamato's but there wasn't a whole lot he could do about it.
Even at the battle of Midway what the japanese called the "Main Body" of their strike fleet was made up of BB's and CA's. They still planned to finish the US fleet off with their big guns after the CV's and weakened them some. I really think even Yammamoto wasn't completely convinced the CV was true naval power until afetr Midway.
-
The Kongo was built by the British. It was the last capital ship built for the Japanese by another country. After that she home built her BBs and BCs.
And btw, 16 inch American Guns did hit enemy battleships. In the Battle of Surigao Straits the US Battleships West Virginia and Maryland engaged the IJN battlewagons. This was a pretty one sided fight but both of those BBs carried 16/45 main guns.
-
wklink is correct, I believe the Fuso was sunk by american BB's.
-
So far as I can tell, Japan had four battleships.
Nagato survived the war and was expended at Bikini.
Mutsu was destroyed by an ammo explosion while in harbor.
Yamato was destroyed by air attack.
Musashi was destroyed by air attack.
The rest of Japan's battleships seem more like battlecruisers to me.
-
i agree they where either heavy cruisers and destroyers some escort ships and like thats it
-
Originally posted by Karnak
So far as I can tell, Japan had four battleships.
Nagato survived the war and was expended at Bikini.
Mutsu was destroyed by an ammo explosion while in harbor.
Yamato was destroyed by air attack.
Musashi was destroyed by air attack.
The rest of Japan's battleships seem more like battlecruisers to me.
The Fuso and Ise classes were both true drednought style battleships. They had the same 12 inch armor that the Nagato class did, similar speed ratings as well. Their deck armor was thinner but that was typical of the pre WW1 styled BBs.
The Kongo class was a BC that was 'upgraded' over the years. The Japanese saw what happened to Royal Navy BCs at Jutland and tried to correct the deficiencies with their own battlecruisers. Remember that two of these three ships were built in Japan, but they are based upon a British design and as such had the same problems the original British Battlecruisers had.
-
Originally posted by Movie
i agree they where either heavy cruisers and destroyers some escort ships and like thats it
Mistaking a Battle Cruiser for a Battleship is easy, mistaking a Heavy Cruiser for a Battleship is possible. Mistaking a Destroyer or Escort for a Battleship means you should join the Air Force
-
this is the Japanese battleship Kongô, was the Imperial Japanese Navy's first super-dreadnought type battlecruiser. Later "upgraded" to battleship.
Career
Ordered: 1911
Laid down: January 17, 1911
Launched: May 18, 1912
Commissioned: August 16, 1913
Fate: Sunk on 21 November 1944 in the Formosa Strait
Removed from the Navy list: 20 January 1945
General characteristics
Displacement: 36,600 tons
Length: 222 m (728 feet 4 inches)
Beam: 31 m (101 feet 8 inches)
Draught: 9.7 m (31 feet 9 inches)
Propulsion: steam turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 30 knots
Range: 10,000 nm at 14 kt
Complement: 1360
Armament: Eight 14 inch guns, sixteen 6 inch guns, eight 5 inch DP, up to 118 × 25 mm AA
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h90000/h90512t.jpg)
-
Nagato class was the most powerful warship in the world when it was launched in the 1920s. First BB with 16" guns, good armor and faster than any Dreadought.
-
this is the USS New Orleans heavycruiser...
Career
Ordered:
Laid down: 14 March 1931
Launched: 12 April 1933
Commissioned: 15 February 1934
Decommissioned: 10 February 1947
Fate: Scrapped in 1959
Struck: 1 March 1959
General Characteristics
Displacement: 9,950 tons
Length: 588 ft 2 in (179 m)
Beam: 61 ft 9 in (18.8 m)
Draft: 19 ft 5 in (5.9 m)
Propulsion:
Speed: 32.7 knots
Range:
Complement: 708 officers and enlisted
Armament: 9 × 8 in (203 mm), 8 × 5 in (127 mm), 8 × .50 (~12.7 mm) calibre guns
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/NewOrleans350Bracken/NewOrleansEspirituSantoNov42.jpg)
-
this is the USS Iowa battleship...
Career
Ordered: 1 July 1939
Laid down: 27 June 1940
Launched: 27 August 1942
Commissioned: 22 February 1943
Decommissioned: 26 October 1990
Struck: 17 March 2006
Status: Maintained as part of the US Reserve Fleet
Slated to be donated for use as a museum ship on or around 2008
General Characteristics
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 887 ft 3 in (270 m)
Beam: 108 ft 2 in (32.9 m)
Draft: 37 ft 2 in (11.3 m)
Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h)
Complement: 151 officers, 2637 enlisted
Armament: 1943 9 16 in (406 mm) 50 cal. Mark 7 guns
20 5 in (127 mm) 38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 40 mm 56 cal. anti-aircraft guns
49 20 mm 70 cal. anti-aircraft guns
(http://www.navyleaguestockton.org/USS%20Iowa%20prime.JPG)
-
Now this is the USS McGowan destroyer...
General Characteristics
Displacement: 2,050 tons
Length: 376 ft 6 in (114.7 m)
Beam: 39 ft 8 in (12.1 m)
Draft: 17 ft 9 in (5.4 m)
Propulsion: 60,000 shp (45 MW);
geared turbines;
2 propellers
Speed: 38 knots (70 km/h)
Range: 6,500 nautical miles at 15 kt
(12,000 km at 30 km/h)
Complement: 319
Armament: 5 × 5 in.(127 mm)/38 guns,
10 × 40 mm AA guns,
7 × 20 mm AA guns,
10 × 21 in. torpedo tubes,
6 × depth charge projectors,
2 × depth charge tracks
(http://www.ussmcgowandd678.org/Mc%20haze%20grey.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
So far as I can tell, Japan had four battleships.
Nagato survived the war and was expended at Bikini.
Mutsu was destroyed by an ammo explosion while in harbor.
Yamato was destroyed by air attack.
Musashi was destroyed by air attack.
The rest of Japan's battleships seem more like battlecruisers to me.
You could also make that same argument for the U.S. "battleships" at the beginning of the war, i.e. Nevada class, Maryland class, etc.
-
Nevada class
Displacement: 27,500 tons
Armament: 10 × 14 in (356 mm) (2x3, 2x2), 21 × 5 in (127 mm) (21x1), 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
Armor:
Speed: 20 knots
Ships in class: 2: USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma
Commissioned: both in 1916
Fate: Nevada sunk as target 1948; Oklahoma sunk at Pearl Harbor in 1941, raised and stripped of salvagable parts, sunk in route to scrapping 1947
(http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/am/bb_uss_nevada_bb36_1944.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Wasn't some of the older class BB's, or BC's as you call them like the Ise and Fuso, actually bulit by the British in the early 1900s? It seems I read that somewhere once and you're the guy to ask.
Even at the battle of Midway what the japanese called the "Main Body" of their strike fleet was made up of BB's and CA's. They still planned to finish the US fleet off with their big guns after the CV's and weakened them some. I really think even Yammamoto wasn't completely convinced the CV was true naval power until afetr Midway.
Shifty, read the book in my signature and then tell me what you think. It's a very revealing book into Yamamoto's feelings on alot of things just before WWII.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
But would it be able to go into space? Like the real Yamato I mean.
lol you mean this one? If only one country had this there would be no contest! Give it to nits! MUHAHAHA
BTW That was a great cartoon series. (Star Blazers)
(http://inferno.slug.org/jpeg/yamato.jpg)
(http://www.otal.umd.edu/~mgk/blog/yamato.jpg)
(http://www.starblazers.com/images/newsletter/october04/0309.jpg)
(http://www.bdc.brain.riken.go.jp/~rpaine/SciFiImages/datafiles/Yamato.gif)
-
OMFG!