Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: McLovin1 on April 20, 2008, 01:01:40 PM
-
First I have some thoughts. These Iowa Class Battleships would be awesome. Also we should make it that when they get close enough to each other they make a formation. With circles the destroyers on the outside, next layer is made of the cruisers, then come the battleships, then there are the carriers. Here is a link showing the arrangements. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1430551069/bclid1442316029/bctid1506016066 (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1430551069/bclid1442316029/bctid1506016066)
[list[
- Pictures:
- (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Uss_wisconsin_bb.jpg)
- (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg)
- (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/New_Jeresy_broadside.JPG)
- [img wisth=500 height=400]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg[/img]
- (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Missouri_Recovers.jpg)
- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg)
- (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/16-50_Mark_VII_gun_barrel.JPG)
- General characteristics
- Displacement:
- 45,000 tons (standard)
- 52,000 tons (mean war service)
- 58,000 tons (full load)
- Length:
- 861¼ ft (262.5 m) between perpendiculars
- 890 ft (271 m) overall
- Beam: 108 ft (33 m)
- Draught: 36 ft (11 m) maximum
- Propulsion:
- 4 screws
- Geared turbines
- 8 Babcock & Wilcox Boilers
- G.E. (BB-61;BB-63)
- West. (BB-62; BB-64; BB-66)
- 212,000 shp (158,000 kW)
- Speed:
- 33 knots (61 km/h) nominal
- 35 knots (65 km/h) maximum
- Range:
- 9,600 miles (15,000 km) @ 25 knots (46 km/h)
- 16,600 miles (27,000 km) @ 15 knots (28 km/h)
- Complement: 2,700 officers and men
- Armament:
- 9 × 16-inch (406 mm) / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns
- 20 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 38 cal. Mark 12 guns
- 80 × 40 mm / 56 cal. Bofors anti-aircraft guns
- 49 × 20 mm / 70 cal. Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns
- Aircraft carried:
- 3 × Vought OS2U Kingfisher or 3 × Curtiss SC Seahawk
- 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun
- Gun characteristics
- Designation: 16 in/50 caliber (406 mm × 20.3 m) Mark 7
- Ship Class Used On: Iowa (BB-61) and Montana (BB-67) classes
- Date Of Design: 1939
- Date In Service: 1943
- Gun Weight:
- 267,904 lb (121,519 kg) (including breech)
- 239,156 lb (108,479 kg) (without breech)
- Gun Length oa: 816 in (20.73 m) (breech face to muzzle)
- Bore Length: 800 in (20.32 m)
- Rifling Length: 682.9 in (17.35 m)
- Grooves: (96) 0.150 in deep (3.81 mm)
- Twist: Uniform RH 1 in 25
- Chamber Volume: 27,000 cu in (0.44 m³)
- Rate Of Fire: 2 rounds per minute
- Note: The primer cartridge can be either electric or percussion fired.
- Range: 41,622 yards (38.059 km or 20.55 nm) with nominal 660 lb (300 kg) powder charge
- Muzzle Velocity: 2,690 feet per second (820 m/s)
-
EXCELLENT post - you laid out the facts very well :aok. And I think that it's a great idea :D.
AND before any old fart comes in and says "eeuuuuummmggghhh, SEARCH", I'd like to tell those people (you know who you are ;)):
- I know this has been requested fairly recently, but So What? If McLovin1 bumped the old thread, he'd have been accused of bumping it.
- If the existence of this thread offends you because someone's already asked for it, then don't read it.
Sorry for my aggressiveness, I really don't know what gotten in to me tonight...
It might be that I've seen a *few*too many of these "Try the search button" posts...
In any case, this idea has got my 'vote'
<S>
Yossarian
-
EXCELLENT post - you laid out the facts very well :aok. And I think that it's a great idea :D.
AND before any old fart comes in and says "eeuuuuummmggghhh, SEARCH", I'd like to tell those people (you know who you are ;)):
- I know this has been requested fairly recently, but So What? If McLovin1 bumped the old thread, he'd have been accused of bumping it.
- If the existence of this thread offends you because someone's already asked for it, then don't read it.
Sorry for my aggressiveness, I really don't know what gotten in to me tonight...
It might be that I've seen a *few*too many of these "Try the search button" posts...
In any case, this idea has got my 'vote'
<S>
Yossarian
first, thanks dude, and second I all ready searched for Iowa class.
-
Im in too.
Also about the 'search button' thing. Im glad you said that, beacause two many times on other forums people ask one simple question and then get a bunch of nasty replies screaming at them to use the search button. Glad you agree yossarian.
Salute to you for that :salute
-
s
-
Sorry for my aggressiveness, I really don't know what gotten in to me tonight...
It might be that I've seen a *few*too many of these "Try the search button" posts...
Mclovin, yes to the battleship. Yoss, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the BBS search police.
-
Well, lets just wait :noid :noid
Lets see who is the first to post something like "<--search" on here....
But, you actually laid out facts and many other things about the ship. :aok
IN! :aok
-
Two things. One do i get an award for two clear and concise posts in a row? And two, here are some pictures of formations for task groups. We could make it that when a cv gets within 2k of another both commanders get an option to combine, if no one is in charge then they combine automatically. That way we could get the mutual fire support without the ships being soo close they are easy to hit with a torp spread. I only go up to three but you get the idea, carriers inside then battleships, cruisers, then destroyers.
- 1 CV
- (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4577/1taskforceiw3.th.jpg)
- 2 CV's
- (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6797/2taskforceim4.th.jpg)
- 3 CV's
- (http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1677/3taskforcedc4.th.jpg)
-
I'd rather see Big Mamie in AH
(http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/127/battleshipmassachusettsyu3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
BB59 USS Massachusetts (South Dakota class)
Commishioned: May 1942
Battleship Massachusetts BB-59
The USS Massachusetts is one of four WWII South Dakota Class Battleships. BB-59's specifications are:
Length: 680 feet
Beam: 108 feet
Draught: 26 feet 9 inches
Crew: 2,500
Displacement: 35,000 tons (42,000 tons fully loaded)
Max Speed: 30kts (35mph)
Fuel Capacity: 7,000 tons of fuel oil
Armament:
9 16" 50 cal.
20 5" 38 cal.
68 40mm Bofors AA
40 20mm Oerlikon AA
Aircraft: 3 Vought Kingfisher Seaplanes with 2 Catapults
Armor: 16" at the sides
Power Plant: 8 oil fired boilers powering geared steam turbines driving 4 screws with 130,000 Shaft Horsepower
Launching Date: September 23, 1941 at the Bethlehem Steel Company Quincy, MA
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5783/bb58indiana048xv7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Brief Operational History:
Following her shakedown period Battleship Massachusetts went into action on November 8, 1942 as part of Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. While cruising off the city of Casablanca, Morocco, the Battleship engaged in a gun duel with the unfinished French battleship Jean Bart, moored at a Casablanca pier. In this battle, Massachusetts fired the first American 16" projectile in anger of World War II. Five hits from Big Mamie silenced the enemy battleship, and other 16" shells from Battleship Massachusetts helped sink two destroyers, two merchant ships, a floating dry-dock, and heavily damaged buildings and docks in Casablanca.
Big Mamie's 16" guns pounded Iwo Jima and Okinawa before those islands were invaded in 1945, and by July of that year she was off Japan with the Third Fleet. The Battleship bombarded the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Kamaishi, and then sailed south to bombard a factory at Hamamatsu. Returning to Kamaishi, Battleship Massachusetts fired the last American 16" projectile of the war.
From:http://www.battleshipcove.org/bb59-history.htm and http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/BattleshipUSSMassachusetts/index.htm
-
20 min away in Fall River my son loves the " The Big battle boats " :aok
I'd rather see Big Mamie in AH
(http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/127/battleshipmassachusettsyu3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
BB59 USS Massachusetts (South Dakota class)
Commishioned: May 1942
Battleship Massachusetts BB-59
The USS Massachusetts is one of four WWII South Dakota Class Battleships. BB-59's specifications are:
Length: 680 feet
Beam: 108 feet
Draught: 26 feet 9 inches
Crew: 2,500
Displacement: 35,000 tons (42,000 tons fully loaded)
Max Speed: 30kts (35mph)
Fuel Capacity: 7,000 tons of fuel oil
Armament:
9 16" 50 cal.
20 5" 38 cal.
68 40mm Bofors AA
40 20mm Oerlikon AA
Aircraft: 3 Vought Kingfisher Seaplanes with 2 Catapults
Armor: 16" at the sides
Power Plant: 8 oil fired boilers powering geared steam turbines driving 4 screws with 130,000 Shaft Horsepower
Launching Date: September 23, 1941 at the Bethlehem Steel Company Quincy, MA
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5783/bb58indiana048xv7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Brief Operational History:
Following her shakedown period Battleship Massachusetts went into action on November 8, 1942 as part of Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. While cruising off the city of Casablanca, Morocco, the Battleship engaged in a gun duel with the unfinished French battleship Jean Bart, moored at a Casablanca pier. In this battle, Massachusetts fired the first American 16" projectile in anger of World War II. Five hits from Big Mamie silenced the enemy battleship, and other 16" shells from Battleship Massachusetts helped sink two destroyers, two merchant ships, a floating dry-dock, and heavily damaged buildings and docks in Casablanca.
Big Mamie's 16" guns pounded Iwo Jima and Okinawa before those islands were invaded in 1945, and by July of that year she was off Japan with the Third Fleet. The Battleship bombarded the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Kamaishi, and then sailed south to bombard a factory at Hamamatsu. Returning to Kamaishi, Battleship Massachusetts fired the last American 16" projectile of the war.
From:http://www.battleshipcove.org/bb59-history.htm and http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/BattleshipUSSMassachusetts/index.htm
-
SEARCH!!
j/k :noid :noid
-
20 min away in Fall River my son loves the " The Big battle boats " :aok
When i'm not here at school in Maine my house is about 20 minutes from there. I used to drive by on my way to hockey everyday. I've pretty much been in every compartment on that boat as well as on the Lionfish and Kennedy.
-
1.) I just went to Norfolk to see BB.64 Wisconsin 2 weeks ago. The sight of an Iowa parked right there on Waterside Dr. is Awesome, just walking around her deck and standing beneath those 16" is amazing.
2.) I was not always the southern boy I am today in sunny Carolina. Originally I was from Lowell Mass. I still have kin that live up there, namely my great uncle and his family whoom live in Fall River. I never got a chance to visit BB.59 when I lived near it, but next time I visit my relatives in Lowell or out at the cape, I will stop by and visit BB.59
:salute
-
Not too far from Fall River we also have CV59 (Forrestal) and CV60 (Saratoga) as well as another ship, I think is a small BB or CA.
Note: these are not the same named ships from WWII, these were commishioned in the 1950's. Saratoga is currently being prepared to become a musuem at Quonset Point in Rhode Island. Forestal is currently being stripped down to become an artificial reef. I have no idea what the 3rd ship is. In 1999 the group that purchased the Saratoga also made a bid for the Iowa, but the Iowa is in WA, AFAIK.
-
how about the texas it was the only american battleship to survive both world wars and fight in them
-
Sorry for my aggressiveness, I really don't know what gotten in to me tonight...
It might be that I've seen a *few*too many of these "Try the search button" posts...
I think it's battle fatigue mixed with a degree of paranoia that someone is trying to kill you either by attacking your plane (or flying it) or indirectly by sending you on ridiculously hazardous missions. You can see it in your face. I suggest plotting an emergency heading to Switzerland, if necessary.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Yossarian.jpg)
BB Joisy is a big `ol beautiful American battleship, ain't she? Guess we could go one of three ways on this:
We could follow MA uberlogic and remind others that the Yamato was bigger, therefore better.
We could jump on this bandwagon and call it not only a well thought-out suggestion but one that deserves a priority over other considerations.
We could politely suggest that as informative as the post/suggestion was (as well as timely and unique) that the game has greater needs presently.
I vote C, for now ... respectfully and non-threateningly. :D
-
how about the texas it was the only american battleship to survive both world wars and fight in them
Man, that thing has like 4 billion little anti aircraft guns and what not on there. Trust me I've seen it myself.
But, it's a really pretty ship too. It isn't as big as the others, but it has I think 10 14" guns. A crud load of those 5" guns that were mounted in the side hull, and god knows what else. But if we get the New York Class (New York->BB-34 Texas->BB-35) we should have another countrie's battle fleet. Perhaps British? Lets say the Ark Royal? Or Japanese, so we could have for carriers hmm... the Zuikaku. I'm pretty sure that was the best Japanese Carrier IIRC.
-
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h61000/h61243.jpg)
Here she is in 1919 note the older style masts and rigging. Also the casement guns in the hull can clearly be seen.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g60000/g63542.jpg)
Here she is in her later post-modernization configuration the casement guns now removed and an updated mast and rigging.
(http://www.subsim.com/house/meet2054.jpg)
Here is a shot of her in her present state, preserved as a museum. A fitting tribute to a ship that served her nation through multiple conflicts ending her career with 5 battle stars and returning to a greatful nation.
-
I tell you one thing...if we do get that ring defense...I hope they tone down the ack a little...it's deadly as it is...
-
For once i agree with McLovin. :aok :aok
-
If you are going Texas how about a nod to #34, the New York which my grandfather served on during WW2. He participated in the Okinawa and Iwo Jima battles. I still remember as a young kid hearing the story of Kamikaze attacks including the one that almost killed him. My father still keeps his diary in the safe deposit box.
-
For once i agree with McLovin. :aok :aok
finally
-
And guys im not talking just about USS Iowa I am talking about a class of battleships, the USS Iowa was just the first so they name the class after her.
-
Also we should make it that when they get close enough to each other they make a formation.
Nice ideas except the "we" part. What part of this are YOU going to do exactly? Just thought I'd ask.
-
Nice ideas except the "we" part. What part of this are YOU going to do exactly? Just thought I'd ask.
Well HE requested it, many agreed on it. SOOOO if this thread gets enough support HT can deal with what to do with formations and what not.
-
be great for shore bombardment, if so, should allow catapulting of kingfishers off..
-
:aok
-
When i'm not here at school in Maine my house is about 20 minutes from there. I used to drive by on my way to hockey everyday. I've pretty much been in every compartment on that boat as well as on the Lionfish and Kennedy.
You live way to close for comfort. :noid ;)
-
You live way to close for comfort. :noid ;)
Don't worry, I can bet you still wouldn't know where my town is. :D
-
Battleships would be nice. Especially the Texas i've been there a couple of times with my pops.
-
Don't worry, I can bet you still wouldn't know where my town is. :D
Wanna bet. :D
-
be great for shore bombardment, if so, should allow catapulting of kingfishers off..
we should also have like barrel selection they could fire single barrels.
-
How about this the USS Alabama South Dakota class. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/60a.htm
-
How about this the USS Alabama South Dakota class. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/60a.htm
sure but they are a bit small.
-
sure but they are a bit small.
they maybe small but they were effective. (see my USS Massachusetts post on page 1)
-
how about the texas it was the only american battleship to survive both world wars and fight in them
There were 6 other U.S. battleships that saw service in WWI and WWII and survived both.
My regards,
Widewing
-
USS North Carolina :aok
Sorry guys, I have to go with my home state :rock
-
North Carolina would be awesome
-
USS North Carolina :aok
Sorry guys, I have to go with my home state :rock
GUYS SECOND TIME WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BATTLE SHIP BUT A CLASS OF BATTLESHIPS!!!!! THE IOWA WAS THE FIRST OF ITS CLASS SO THE CLASS WAS NAMED AFTER IT!!!!!! :mad:
-
SQUEAK!!!!!! :mad:
-
O noes!!!! its the BIG RED SQUEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!! :O
-
I have personally visisted the Wisconsin BB.64 on Waterside Dr. in Norfolk.
I plan in the future to see the other three of her sisters. To the best of my
rememberance the NewJersey is moored in NJ, the Mighty MO is moored at
Pearl on battleship row, and the Iowa is going to be moored on the coast of
California. I thought it was supposed to go to Sanfran but as I have read too many
doushe bags there were against a symbol of American might being moored there
so a town farther up the coast is in the process of getting it.
Any how, I plan on seeing BB.55 USS NorthCarolina moored at Wilmington. This is a mere 3-4
hours drive from the house as was BB.64. I surely wish they would have kept atleast one
Iowa in comission. To actually see one of these steel behemoths in person is awe inspiring.
I for one still believe they have a place in the modern navy, but that is not here or there. I
begrugingly accept the fact that they are religated to be preserved as museun ships, though
there is a clause in their contracts If I am not mistaken that states that if needed the Govt. can
re-comission them because they have to be kept in a reasonable able to restore condition.
:salute
-
okay, since we are arguing about which class of battleship we get, we shouldn't have any, ANY with the 16" guns. We should have the weaker ones like the Arkansas Class or the New York Class. Mainly because those have 12" and 14" guns. So we dont have the uber guns atleast. :aok
-
okay, since we are arguing about which class of battleship we get, we shouldn't have any, ANY with the 16" guns. We should have the weaker ones like the Arkansas Class or the New York Class. Mainly because those have 12" and 14" guns. So we dont have the uber guns atleast. :aok
Those older classes are far too slow to keep pace with the carrier. It's Iowa, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Missouri or it's nothing....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Not even the BB-35 (Texas)? :(
Well, I was just trying to keep things simpler. :aok
Every1 wants their own ship. I just dont want it to be too uber. :aok
-
Not even the BB-35 (Texas)? :(
Well, I was just trying to keep things simpler. :aok
Every1 wants their own ship. I just dont want it to be too uber. :aok
dude WWII was all about trying to out uber the uber of the other guys uber.
-
If that we're true, Germany would have one the war. A whole lot more went into it than how uber your equipment was.
-
If that we're true, Germany would have one the war. A whole lot more went into it than how uber your equipment was.
we won cause we out ubered them in production and training.
-
we won cause we out ubered them in production and training.
In production, partly, because we designed tanks and aircraft that were easy to produce and not over-engineered to be perfect. So, we purposely made our equipment less uber, just as the Russians did, and still do.
Not sure where the training comment comes from. Germany had plenty of elite units in all feilds and the highest scoring aces of the war. If the U.S. had Heinkels and Junkers flying over it, I'm sure we'd have had plenty of unexperienced pilots joining up to fill the gaps.
-
dude WWII was all about trying to out uber the uber of the other guys uber.
No, it was using what you had to kill what they had. In the beginning, the Americans had crud compared to the Japanese and the Germans. We still beat them at guadalcanal, and North Africa.
It's not about how uber it is, it's about what you have and how you use it. Just dont think that BBs should have such big guns. Man like 2 shots could take down a town. 1 shot could prolly kill a FH or BH. :aok
-
No, it was using what you had to kill what they had. In the beginning, the Americans had crud compared to the Japanese and the Germans. We still beat them at guadalcanal, and North Africa.
It's not about how uber it is, it's about what you have and how you use it. Just dont think that BBs should have such big guns. Man like 2 shots could take down a town. 1 shot could prolly kill a FH or BH. :aok
dude they could dumb down the boom boom but the visual affect with the wake would be frickin awesome but dude cummon just go with it
-
Just dont think that BBs should have such big guns. Man like 2 shots could take down a town. 1 shot could prolly kill a FH or BH. :aok
that is the point to BBs. To have large caliber wepons to decimate an enemy surface fleet or ground targets. While I like the Iowa, I am more apt to want KMS Bismark or KMS Tirpitz. While only packing 8 X 11" guns as it's main batteries, I believe it would prove lethal provided she had the appropriate escourt of Z.31 DD and possably a Deutschland class CA.
-
that is the point to BBs. To have large caliber wepons to decimate an enemy surface fleet or ground targets. While I like the Iowa, I am more apt to want KMS Bismark or KMS Tirpitz. While only packing 8 X 11" guns as it's main batteries, I believe it would prove lethal provided she had the appropriate escourt of Z.31 DD and possably a Deutschland class CA.
I think you meant to say that they had 15" guns... Which they did.
The problem with these ships is that their tripleA defense was miserable, and our current fleet consists of an Essex class CV, a Baltimore class CA and Fletcher class DDs. It's only natural that the US BB would be appropriate, and only the Iowa class had the speed to steam with the fleet carriers at full speed. That is why the WWI and inter-war BBs were not assigned to fast carrier groups.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yepper, I had a typo. I was refering to the 11" guns of the Deutchland class CA. Bismarck had 15". I would not call her AAA defence miserable though....
KMS Bismarck.
Secondary Armament-
Designation: 15 cm SK C/28 (5.9 inch)
Number: 12 (2 x 6 ) 3 twin turrets by side
Barrel length (L/55): 8.25 meters
Barrel weight: 9.08 metric tons
Barrel grooves: 44
Turret weight (without barbette): 108 metric tons
110 metric tons (central)
Elevation range: between -10° and +40°
Training rate: 8°/second
Elevation rate: 9°/second
Rate of fire: 8 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 23,000 meters at 40° = 25,150 yards at 40°
Muzzle velocity: 875 meters/second = 2,871 feet/second
Shell weight: 45.3 kg = 99.8 lbs
Propellant charge weight: 23.5 kg = 51.8 lbs
Ammunition supply:
· 15cm Spgr. L/4,5 Bdz (m.Hb):
· 15cm Spgr. L/4,6 Kz (m.Hb):
622 shells
666 shells
Barrel life: 2,500 rounds
Heavy AAA Guns-
Designation: 10.5 cm SK C/33 (4.1 inch)
Number: 16 (2 x 8 ) in 4 double mounts by side
Barrel length (L/65): 6.825 meters
Barrel weight: 4.56 metric tons
Mount weight: Mounting C31: 27.350 metric tons
Mounting C37: 26.425 metric tons
Elevation range: Mounting C31: between -8° and +80°
Mounting C37: between -10° and +80°
Angular velocity: Mounting C31: vertical: 10°/sec, horizontal: 8°/sec
Mounting C37: vertical: 12°/sec, horizontal: 8.5°/sec
Rate of fire: 18 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 17,700 meters = 19,357 yards
Vertical range: 12,500 meters at 80º
Muzzle velocity: 900 meters/second = 2,952 feet/second
Shell weight: 15.1 kg = 33.1 lbs
Ammunition supply: 6,825 shells
Medium AAA Guns-
Designation: 3.7 cm SK C/30 (37mm)
Number: 16 (2 x 8 ) in 4 double mounts by side
Barrel length (L/83): 3.071 m
Elevation range: between -10º and +80º
Rate of fire: 80 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 6,750 meters = 7,382 yards
Muzzle velocity: 1,000 meters/second = 3,281 feet/second
Shell weight: 0.745 kg = 1.64 lbs
Ammunition supply: 34,100 projectiles
Light AAA Guns-
Designation: 2 cm MG C/30 (20mm)
2 cm Flak C/38
Number: 10 (1 x 10) in 10 single pedestals
8 (4 x 2) in 2 quadruple mounts
Barrel length (L/65): 1.3 meters
Elevation range: +90º
Rate of fire: 200 rounds/minute/barrel
Maximum range: 4,800 meters = 5,249 yards
Muzzle velocity: 900 meters/second = 2,952 feet/second
Shell Weight: 0.132 kg = 0.291 lbs
Ammunition supply: 44,000 projectiles
(http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/imgs/kms_bismarck.jpg)
I believe her downfall was not her defensive wepons but her lack of escourt. Had she a propper destroyer screen about her and had the Prinz Eugen not left her while she was RTB to France, then she would have stood a chance. I think that War came too early for the Kreigsmarine and the admiralty did nto have adaquate time to prepare a surface fleet propper. This includes the KMS Graf Zepplin which was never finnished, owing alot to Goerings arrogance reguarding everything that flies is his to control thereby hindering the development of the Bf.109T and JU.87C carrier bourne craft.
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6456/grafzeppelin002em7.jpg)
Had Germany used her naval assets properly, I believe the Atlantic could have been different.
-
For a well rounded and smart analysis of WWII battleships, visit this website:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
-
umm.... refer to my thread called "carriers" This could be an add on to the idea. :aok
If we get different countrie's Battleships, we should get multi-country aircraft Carriers. That way an essex class carrier isn't escorted by the Yamato or something like that. :lol
-
I think Iowa Class battleships would NOT be at the top of my list in the rather restricted world of AH---of course, in a rich, superabundant world (where HTC builds our wildest wishes--why not).m Why?
(1) The Very Idea of battlewagons
There are some problems with battleships in game, in general. The range and potency of the guns (Volswagen sized projectiles heaved 24 nautical miles (almost a full game square). Historically, these ships in WWII functioned mainly as targets to be sunk by AC. Bismarck, Tirpitz, HMS Prince of Wales, Italian Fleet at Taranto, US Fleet at Pearl, Yamato, etc.. They did provide ground support fire and serve various ceremonial and political functions.
(2)Not Iowa Class
If we get past (1) above and decide we can have battleships---I think the Iowa class would be quite a ways down the list. Remember new GVs and ships should integrate easily into a game that is largely a flight sim. So, IMO (as someone said) Tirpitz, Italian capital Ships, French capital ships (sunk by Brits, and later by US at Oran), US older class ships (California, Nevada, Maryland), HMS Prince of Wales would be better starting points---since maps, historical scenarios could be designed around them. There is a disturbing tendency in these games to be US-centric in our choices.
(3) Emasculating Solution
As we said the gun range and potency are a problem. Solution? Have battleships that function as "props" at ports on some new realistic maps---they are largely targets not contributers. So on a Pacific map "Peral harbor" would feature all the ships tied up as they were (AK would work on ships) one might get Kill message "You have sunk USS Arizona". Same features at Truk, Taranto, Norway. There could be target task forces at sea to be detected and sunk. Or---it is conceivable to deal with the guns by hardening towns etc..
Impakt
-
I think Iowa Class battleships would NOT be at the top of my list in the rather restricted world of AH---of course, in a rich, superabundant world (where HTC builds our wildest wishes--why not).m Why?
(1) The Very Idea of battlewagons
There are some problems with battleships in game, in general. The range and potency of the guns (Volswagen sized projectiles heaved 24 nautical miles (almost a full game square). Historically, these ships in WWII functioned mainly as targets to be sunk by AC. Bismarck, Tirpitz, HMS Prince of Wales, Italian Fleet at Taranto, US Fleet at Pearl, Yamato, etc.. They did provide ground support fire and serve various ceremonial and political functions.
Historically, by late 1942 USN BBs were assigned to carrier task forces to provide a large portion of the tripleA screen. There were several battleship vs battleship engagements in the Pacific war, off of Guadalcanal and later at Surigao Strait. These engagements cost the Japanese 3 battleships. Older Battleships were generally assigned the task of softening beaches. Newer ones were assigned to fast carrier Task Forces. However, the only class of BB that was able to run with the carriers at high speed was the Iowa class. Sorry, but while the Battleship had seen its role change, they were still very important ships.
(2)Not Iowa Class
If we get past (1) above and decide we can have battleships---I think the Iowa class would be quite a ways down the list. Remember new GVs and ships should integrate easily into a game that is largely a flight sim. So, IMO (as someone said) Tirpitz, Italian capital Ships, French capital ships (sunk by Brits, and later by US at Oran), US older class ships (California, Nevada, Maryland), HMS Prince of Wales would be better starting points---since maps, historical scenarios could be designed around them. There is a disturbing tendency in these games to be US-centric in our choices.
We have US based task groups, why would they select German, Italian or Japanese Battleships to screen a US fleet? In terms of speed, only the Iowas were fast enough to run with out CV groups.
Common sense says that if they add a Battleship, it should conform to the fleet structure of US ships. You can bet that they will not invest the large volume of time required to model fleets of other nations.
My regards,
Widewing
-
What I would rather see done is different fleets.
Lets say someone kills a Knight cv. Ok, so it re-spawns 10-15 mins or so later. Instead of spawning with the typical 4 destroyers, 1 cruiser and a cv, I could spawn with say 6 Destroyers and a cv, or 2 cruisers and a cv.
I'd like to see some sort of a randomization code for the task groups, just to make it more immersive.
-
What I would rather see done is different fleets.
Lets say someone kills a Knight cv. Ok, so it re-spawns 10-15 mins or so later. Instead of spawning with the typical 4 destroyers, 1 cruiser and a cv, I could spawn with say 6 Destroyers and a cv, or 2 cruisers and a cv.
I'd like to see some sort of a randomization code for the task groups, just to make it more immersive.
or 7 CV's, or 1 cv and 6 CA's :t
-
Still siding with the multi-country task groups. So we get multi-country battleships. :aok
-
If we get this ship we need a Musashi to counter it in the AvA.
-
Disagree with "they were still very important ships." They were relics for which some role was sought. The loss of one sides Carriers in the Pacific would have been considered catastrophic---a battleship merely a sad loss of life. The fact that engagements took place does not mean they were central to the outcome. This was the point I made with regard to a "rich" versus "constrained" world. I guess you missed the point about integration into the game. What is AH? At its fundamental core? Is it evolving into an "all-around" WWII sim? Or is it still basically centered around the AC. If it is AC centered then I still stand by my points that other non-US ships would be better in that they would integrate better with air warfare scenarios. The "keeping up with the CV's" is irrelevant on my proposed model of battlewagons as targets which was not addressed. Actually, an Iowa class ship would suit the game with its odd array of exotic beasts (posted on this elsewhere).
Nice to hear the "Fast Carriers" mentioned, my father, Lt. Albert J. Moorman, jr. was an officer on DD-400 McCall from 1942-1945 and aside from detached patrols---the lion's share of that ships role was escorting the "Fast Carriers".
-
we could do escort carriers. Smaller carriers with a smaller escort group. Could have them spawn only certain planes. (ex. American-F4F/FM-2)
-
before anything else gets added, I think the major concern should be all the bugs being worked out from all the updates we have gotten. If, they were to be added, then the crowd of wanting field guns counted towards rank would have some ammunition to try to justify that...
-
I think it's battle fatigue mixed with a degree of paranoia that someone is trying to kill you either by attacking your plane (or flying it) or indirectly by sending you on ridiculously hazardous missions. You can see it in your face. I suggest plotting an emergency heading to Switzerland, if necessary.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Yossarian.jpg)
BB Joisy is a big `ol beautiful American battleship, ain't she? Guess we could go one of three ways on this:
We could follow MA uberlogic and remind others that the Yamato was bigger, therefore better.
We could jump on this bandwagon and call it not only a well thought-out suggestion but one that deserves a priority over other considerations.
We could politely suggest that as informative as the post/suggestion was (as well as timely and unique) that the game has greater needs presently.
I vote C, for now ... respectfully and non-threateningly. :D
Arlo, would I be allowed/would it be ok with you if I put that picture as my avatar?
Anyway, whilst I would have to agree with what you said - the A-26 and Beaufighter remain at the joint-top of my personal wishlist - I would nevertheless love a BB, especially the USS Iowa. Now if only it could fly.....
And on an entirely different subject, I think it's time I make a Yossarian offline mission. :D
-
Disagree with "they were still very important ships."
Be my guest, but you are still wrong. Kindly support your assertion with something beyond rhetoric.
My regards,
Widewing
-
It would be smart not to argue with Widewing. He knows things........ :noid
-
I did support my point. I love logic lessons---having an MA in Philosophy from Georgetown and an M.Phil in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, and having taught philosophy at the University level---I think I know the basic rules of argumentation. This is nothing more than a kind of "appeal to authority", and I'm NOT an authority so I will address your points. Perhaps my point was made too tacitly. I will repeat my points in more detail.
(1) I hold that battleships were "not that important" (does not mean they were irrelevant) BECAUSE their loss in battle was not viewed as decisive or catastrophic. However, the loss of a CV was considered to be such.
(2) I hold that they were antiquated weapons systems looking for some function in a new world dominated by the CV. Please read or re-read Dreadnought, and them some accounts of the naval war in WWI, and perhaps look at the efforts in the 1920s and 1930s to limit naval construction along the lines of the Kellogg-Briand efforts. What will you see? The "capital ships", i.e., Battleships were considered the decisive measure of a nations seapower. Naval war was envisioned as these ships slugging it out a la Jutland at 24,000 yards. This view was torpedoed at Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Norway, off Singapore, Truk, off Brest, etc., etc., . Did the Battleships provide important ground support fire---yes---ak fire? yes. Were they important? I would say they were relatively unimportant for the reasons stated.
(3) Finally, I'm an epistemological holist like W.V.O. Quine. So, mu initial post was intended to be taken as a whole, and to sink or swim as a totality. Looks like it sunk. So, my point about "superabundant" worlds cannot be discarded as one attacks my view of the relative importance of battleships. If HTC wants to build an AH world with few limitations---then fine---add the Iowa Class ships. If the ONLY consideration is keeping up with current CVs----well that is a good reason. It still doesn't address the playability issue of firepower and range. My point was this: To the extent that anyone is interested in historical scenarios that INTEGRATE AC with other weapons systems---then, IMO (a matter of rational belief not of scientific demonstration) there are other battleships that would better suit this role and better represent the systems that took a greater part in the conflict. It is VERY possible that no one cares about the historical aspect. This may be why there are so many "odd birds" in the game, i.e., firefly, Ta-152, Arado, 163, and some others. If "coolness" is the criterion and we just want something that can escort CVs to pound the crap out of a town in the Late War MA---I guess it is a good idea.
(4) BTW---Widewing---your points were no less "rhetorical" ---the fact that a role was found for these ships as an Ak screen---does not mean they were "important". Of course, "important" is a mushy enough term that I suspect we will simply have to disagree, BUT not because of some shortfall on my part. Please note----the battleships were screening the Carriers---a point that supports my point---that they were dinosaurs looking for a raison d'etre which could only be found in CV support.
-
Your post sank for a reason. And no one cares about your preferred style of argument because it does not matter in the least. Nor does your education in philosophy matter in the least. We're discussing the value of a type of warship here, not the value of a college degree you hold.
Sorry, your reasoning is not sound. For example, the Iowa class ships were in service into the eighties, and at their operating cost, they were not kept in service without reason.
Not only were the Iowa class battleships without peer in several areas, they were effective in several roles, including, but not limited to, screening for carriers and other ships of value, as well as shore bombardment (indispensable if you happen to be a guy tasked with storming a beach head), and the ability to defend against practically any surface attack (look into several naval battles, try googling "Taffy 3").
-
snip
(http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/blowhard.jpg)
Blowhard feels the need to present his credentials before entering the fray - even if they are irrelevant to the discussion. For example, in a movie forum conflict he might attempt to settle the matter by saying, "As a Ph. D. candidate in particle physics I believe I can say with some authority that the 'Beavis and Butthead' movie represents the emergence of a new cultural paradigm." Huh?
Edit: ohh and I didn't see any Naval/military historian credentials sooo......
-
I did support my point. I love logic lessons---having an MA in Philosophy from Georgetown and an M.Phil in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, and having taught philosophy at the University level---I think I know the basic rules of argumentation. This is nothing more than a kind of "appeal to authority", and I'm NOT an authority so I will address your points. Perhaps my point was made too tacitly. I will repeat my points in more detail.
That's a fine education, but you obviously didn't learn historical methods or conduct research that includes identifying, evaluating, and presenting the primary and secondary sources of historical information, including historical analysis of said sources. Historical research is often mind-numbing, but essential to understand relevancy.
Let's review your statement.
You stated:
"There are some problems with battleships in game, in general. The range and potency of the guns (Volswagen sized projectiles heaved 24 nautical miles (almost a full game square). Historically, these ships in WWII functioned mainly as targets to be sunk by AC. Bismarck, Tirpitz, HMS Prince of Wales, Italian Fleet at Taranto, US Fleet at Pearl, Yamato, etc.. They did provide ground support fire and serve various ceremonial and political functions."
I asked that you support this with something beyond rhetoric, and you recite your unrelated education and proceed to reiterate your statement, embellishing the language, but without the depth of substance required to support you case. No citing of historical precedent. No historical examples, beyond an overview tainted with personal opinion.
See if you can determine why modern battleships were attached to fast carrier task forces. A simple study of US Naval theory will answer the question. If you limit it to just tripleA screening, you'll fall short.
To stimulate the reasoning and research process, allow me to pose a few questions.
Why did the US fleet retire at high speed after sinking every Japanese carrier at Midway?
Why did the standard ordnance load of modern battleships accompanying fast carriers include a much higher percentage of armor piercing rounds than that supplied to older battleships of support groups?
Why include any AP rounds in the basic loadout?
These three questions hint at the importance of battleships, despite the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier as the principle surface ship for the projection of naval power. These battleships were not attached to these task forces for shore bombardment or for "various ceremonial and political functions." They were there for one primary purpose (tripleA screening was secondary). What was that vital purpose?
Another hint.. Samar.
My regards,
Widewing
-
(1) My education was stated to be an invalid appeal to authority. I raised the issue because of his ad hominem attack that I offered mere rhetoric for my points. He clearly doesn't understand the points I am making so I am at a loss to explain further. I didn't enjoy his arrogant and condescending tone ---so I thought I would point out my familiarity with logic.
(2) Of course the Iowa class ships were in service in the 1980s. Did you think I was unaware of that? They did so because in a world where the US was ever more interested in projecting power in certain regions the Iowa class ships had ground support and cruise missile capability. That has little to do with Ace's high. Thanks for assuming I was unaware of that.
(3) Widewing's condescending tone, and remarks like "don't argue with him he knows things" prompted my remarks. The misunderstanding of my posts doesn't merit further response. What I believe and argue for is stated. If you believe it has been refuted so be it. I did not "present before entering fray" I presented after having already entered and then said they were irrelevant---try reading.
(4) Where were your primary and secondary sources? My main point (remember the "holistic point) was that FOR PURPOSES OF INCLUSION IN THE GAME I DO NOT FAVOR IOWA CLASS SHIPS AS A STARTING POINT. Our historical argument boils down to what "important" must mean. Use does not make importance. Nor the fact that Japanese battleships may have been perceived as a threat. McClellan thought he was outnumbered at Antietam---that did not make the threat a real one. You still haven'y answered the question of whether it would be good in the game to have 15-18" guns (depending on which BB) in the game with regard to range and firepower?? Maybe that kind of firepower wil be good, who knows. My point is that, for my playing experience, I would rather have BBs that could be used in a Tirpitz, Taranto, Pearl etc scenario than have Iowa class ones in the Late war MA---shelling the crap out of everything. The use of CVs in game, the capture of bases, the maps, the LA-7 vs Spit 16 is already so grotesquely unrealistic and arcade like that it seems really amusing to bring the Iowa class fast carrier escort role into the picture.
So since you like questions (1) what are the likely effects of 16" guns in the MA arcade with CV groups charging bases? (2) Why would an Iowa class ship be better than say a Tirpitz which could be used on the Baltic map in a Norway Scenario? Or my proposal for non-firing BBs as elements of historical maps?
Thanks I know about taffy 3---why do you guys attribute ignorance as part of your mode of argumentation?? Is the criterion for in game inclusion "peerlessness?" Or, some use somewhere?? It seems to me that older BBs would be more useful in game just as (in a limited world) a P-40E or Spitfire V would be more important in game than a Ta 152 or Me 262 ---peerless as these latter may be.
To argue that WWII was the emergence of the age of the CV and the end of the era of the BB doesn't need sources to be cited. Arguing about the relative importance of weapons systems will boil down to what the word "important" means. I argue they were relatively unimportant to the outcome of the war. Widewing seems to believe that they were indispensible to the result (with no less rhetoric and no greater amount of sources cited). He fails to answer my main point with regard to the game of AH.
FOR MY INITIAL POST to be understood it must be taken as a whole and be VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT of stating an opinion on the worthiness of Iowa class ships for inclusion in this game ---on the assumption that we can't have everything at once if ever. Widewing simply took my 1st point and without citations or sources asserted the opposite (while demanding them from me--nice trick). He holds BBs were "important"; I hold that aside from ground support and surrender ceremonies, etc they were RELATIVELY unimportant---that doesn't mean they had no role or were without any importance. BUT the main point is not this historical argument. It is do we want 9 16" guns firing on towns and hangars from 24 miles out? Maybe we do maybe we don't. I, as a matter of personal preferance wou;d prefer to see other BBs first even if they are only targets at ports whose large guns could not fire.
-
Never has so little been said with so many words. Your familiarity with logic is not the point, but rather your lack of familiarity with naval warfare, and in particular the U.S. naval warfare doctrine of the era.
It's not that people don't understand your points it's that they don't find them valid or applicable.
For you to complain about condescension is amusing, similar to having Hitler complain about antisemitism.
Why in the Hell would anyone with such a supposedly superior education suggest that HTC waste valuable and scare resources on non firing battleships?
Of your suggested scenarios, only Pearl is likely, and in that case, a battleship is merely a target, and the type is not of any importance. Even the Tirpitz scenario uses the battleship as nothing more than a target.
The extra AAA capability of the Iowa class would be VERY useful considering how vulnerable the carriers are to the various suicidal bombers used so far outside their actual capabilities as to be absurd. Further, the excellent 16" naval rifles with superior fire control would be of great use during a beach assault, as well as making naval gun duels more interesting and entertaining.
Would other battleships of other classes also be useful? Of course. And I would not be opposed to them. However, given how rarely ships are added, my preference is for the Iowa class, because it belongs with with some of the other ships we have.
While the carrier emerged as the center of naval warfare, the battleship was not nearly so useless as you'd have people believe, especially not during World War II.
-
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh204/arlogu3/AHIIwishgenie_kudos.jpg)
-
Great assertions. Sources please. Thanks for calling me ignorant again. I don't WANT non firing ships---BUT if we have firing ones how long will it take 3 turrets firing 3 x 16" guns from taking down all the hangars and town from 24 miles? Is that good or bad for the game?? I don't know. I'd rather have the others.
I disagree with your (unsupported with references) view of my (unsupported with references) view of the relative importance of BBs in WWII. You know NOTHING about my experience with WWII history or Naval history so that is just more ad hominem.
I mentioned my Philosophy experience because I found Widewing's statement that I was arguing incorrectly (as a matter of form) condescending. Please note his counter assertions on the importance of BBs ARE JUST HIS WORDS---THERE ARE NO SOURCES EITHER. But neither of you get the point that we will ultimately be arguing over what "important" means regardless of sources cited.
Like many here, your mode of disagreement is personal attack.
-
Good for you for having second thoughts on the "Cambridge man" bit. :aok
-
Of course, the fact that Widewing was once in the navy (and probably has as firm a grasp of U.S. naval doctrine as any of us are likely to have) is of far less importance than the fact that you don't like the fact no one else argues in the "epistemological holist" :rolleyes: style you prefer.
I "get the point" you are trying to argue, I just don't think you are correct.
No, my method of disagreement is not personal attack. It's just that you perceive it that way.
-
(1) My education was stated to be an invalid appeal to authority. I raised the issue because of his ad hominem attack that I offered mere rhetoric for my points. He clearly doesn't understand the points I am making so I am at a loss to explain further. I didn't enjoy his arrogant and condescending tone ---so I thought I would point out my familiarity with logic.
To begin, there was no "ad hominem" attack. I merely asked you to offer something of less verbosity and more substance to support your statement; "They did provide ground support fire and serve various ceremonial and political functions." This statement says that battleships were reduced to little more than sea going diamond cuff links. It's an assertion that is unsupportable by fact. I was hoping that your "familiarity with logic" would serve you better.
(3) Widewing's condescending tone, and remarks like "don't argue with him he knows things" prompted my remarks. The misunderstanding of my posts don't merit further response. What I believe and argue for is stated. If you believe it has been refuted so be it. I did not "present before entering fray" I presented after having already entered and then said they were irrelevant---try reading.
There was no condescension in my tone, at least not until you elected to puff out your feathers and show us the many colors of your tail.
The esoteric science of philosophy could not be more different than historical study than black is from white. There are specific rules of evidence and opinion must be supported by sufficient fact as to stand the test of peer review. You offered no such support. You are entitled to your opinion, but I considered it within the rules of historical practice. Merely believing something doesn't make it true.
(4) Where were your primary and secondary sources? My main point (remember the "holistic point) was that FOR PURPOSES OF INCLUSION IN THE GAME I DO NOT FAVOR IOWA CLASS SHIPS AS A STARTING POINT. Our historical argument boils down to what "important" must mean. Use does not make importance. Nor the fact that Japanese battleships may have been perceived as a threat. McClellan thought he was outnumbered at Antietam---that did not make the threat a real one. You still haven'y answered the question of whether it would be good in the game to have 15-18" guns (depending on which BB) in the game with regard to range and firepower?? Maybe that kind of firepower wil be good, who knows. My point is that, for my playing experience, I would rather have BBs that could be used in a Tirpitz, Taranto, Pearl etc scenario than have Iowa class ones in the Late war MA---shelling the crap out of everything. The use of CVs in game, the capture of bases, the maps, the LA-7 vs Spit 16 is already so grotesquely unrealistic and arcade like that it seems really amusing to bring the Iowa class fast carrier escort role into the picture.
So since you like questions (1) what are the likely effects of 16" guns in the MA arcade with CV groups charging bases? (2) Why would an Iowa class ship be better than say a Tirpitz which could be used on the Baltic map in a Norway Scenario? Or my proposal for non-firing BBs as elements of historical maps?
Thanks I know about taffy 3---why do you guys attribute ignorance as part of your mode of argumentation?? Is the criterion for in game inclusion "peerlessness?" Or, some use somewhere?? It seems to me that older BBs would be more useful in game just as (in a limited world) a P-40E or Spitfire V would be more important in game than a Ta 152 or Me 262 ---peerless as these latter may be.
You are rambling again. Nonetheless, I do glean that you would not mind battleships in the game if they were neutral to the outcome. A non-firing BB is, essentially, nothing more than landscape (or seascape if you will). It would serve absolutely no function other than being a target. Inasmuch as you perceive BBs to be nothing more than targets, that makes sense to you. Unfortunately, you will find that it makes no sense to anyone else. Why spend resources on something like this? A simple change in the arena set up could harden a CA to be as durable as the Tirpitz.
You seem focused upon the game being unrealistic and even non-historical. Aces High was never intended to truly historical, nor would it be wise to aim for total realism. It is simply an air combat simulator/game that has its basis in historical events, using historical equipment. I'm not sure what the mention of the La-7 and Spitfire XVI implies, but if you are stating that they are unrealistic, you'll have to show how that is.
Your comment; "why do you guys attribute ignorance as part of your mode of argumentation?", assumes that anyone thinks that you are ignorant. On the contrary, I believe you to be anything but ignorant. I do, however, believe that you have drawn incorrect conclusions based upon not grasping the historical relevancy of the Taffy 3/Samar example.
To argue that WWII was the emergence of the age of the CV and the end of the era of the BB doesn't need sources to be cited. Arguing about the relative importance of weapons systems will boil down to what the word "important" means. I argue they were relatively unimportant to the outcome of the war. Widewing seems to believe that they were indispensible to the result (with no less rhetoric and no greater amount of sources cited). He fails to answer my main point with regard to the game of AH.
What does need sources cited is your claim that battleships were unimportant. Moreover, you argue in hindsight, a major blunder for a historical researcher. Both Nimitz and Halsey placed great significance upon BBs being attached to fast carrier groups. Why? As I've already hinted; the fear of encountering major enemy surface units (especially at night where the air groups were useless) was genuine and not without justification. That is the reason Spruance ran his task force east at flank speed for six hours after sinking Hiryu. His covering CAs were no match for the might of the Japanese surface fleet that was still intact and undamaged and it was not yet known if Yamamoto had ordered a withdrawal. Indeed, Yamamoto's staff proposed pursuit of the Americans in the hope of a night engagement. Once again, this was more than a perceived danger and Spruance was no fool.
Very early in the Leyte Gulf battle, Kurita's Center Force had taken a beating. First from submarines and then from the full air might of Halsey's Third Fleet. Yet, despite serious losses (including the sinking of Musashi and torpedo damage to Nagato), Kurita was far from beaten. Satisfied that Kurita was retiring, Halsey committed the first of his several blunders and failed to detach his battleships to cover the landing beaches and provide support for Taffy 2 and Taffy 3 (CVE groups tasked with supporting the invasion). Halsey knew where the Japanese battleships were relative to Ozawa's task force. Nonetheless, he felt that it might be possible to close to gunnery range on the Japanese fleet and wanted his big-gun battleships available for that. We should all know what the result of that decision was. At the time, battleships were still considered major fleet assets, and this is clearly reflected in their use and deployment.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Impakt, I noticed the image in your sigfile..
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e25/mdmoorman/panda-1.jpg)
That cartoon was the work of Bert Christman, who originally drew it with paper and pencil while still at Toungoo. He later applied it to John (Scarsdale Jack) Newkirk's fighter, number 34, a Tomahawk. P-40Es arrived much later, and only in very limited numbers (ferried all the way from North Africa by six AVG pilots).
My regards
Widewing
-
Never has so little been said with so many words. Your familiarity with logic is not the point, but rather your lack of familiarity with naval warfare, and in particular the U.S. naval warfare doctrine of the era.
It's not that people don't understand your points it's that they don't find them valid or applicable.
For you to complain about condescension is amusing, similar to having Hitler complain about antisemitism.
Why in the Hell would anyone with such a supposedly superior education suggest that HTC waste valuable and scare resources on non firing battleships?
Of your suggested scenarios, only Pearl is likely, and in that case, a battleship is merely a target, and the type is not of any importance. Even the Tirpitz scenario uses the battleship as nothing more than a target.
The extra AAA capability of the Iowa class would be VERY useful considering how vulnerable the carriers are to the various suicidal bombers used so far outside their actual capabilities as to be absurd. Further, the excellent 16" naval rifles with superior fire control would be of great use during a beach assault, as well as making naval gun duels more interesting and entertaining.
Would other battleships of other classes also be useful? Of course. And I would not be opposed to them. However, given how rarely ships are added, my preference is for the Iowa class, because it belongs with with some of the other ships we have.
While the carrier emerged as the center of naval warfare, the battleship was not nearly so useless as you'd have people believe, especially not during World War II.
no dude i just dont understand all of his big words and latin! :aok
-
Great assertions. Sources please. Thanks for calling me ignorant again. I don't WANT non firing ships---BUT if we have firing ones how long will it take 3 turrets firing 3 x 16" guns from taking down all the hangars and town from 24 miles? Is that good or bad for the game?? I don't know. I'd rather have the others.
I disagree with your (unsupported with references) view of my (unsupported with references) view of the relative importance of BBs in WWII. You know NOTHING about my experience with WWII history or Naval history so that is just more ad hominem.
I mentioned my Philosophy experience because I found Widewing's statement that I was arguing incorrectly (as a matter of form) condescending. Please note his counter assertions on the importance of BBs ARE JUST HIS WORDS---THERE ARE NO SOURCES EITHER. But neither of you get the point that we will ultimately be arguing over what "important" means regardless of sources cited.
Like many here, your mode of disagreement is personal attack.
goxsh darnit stop with the fricking latin terms that only latin educated peole know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
-
To begin, there was no "ad hominem" attack. I merely asked you to offer something of less verbosity and more substance to support your statement; "They did provide ground support fire and serve various ceremonial and political functions." This statement says that battleships were reduced to little more than sea going diamond cuff links. It's an assertion that is unsupportable by fact. I was hoping that your "familiarity with logic" would serve you better.
There was no condescension in my tone, at least not until you elected to puff out your feathers and show us the many colors of your tail.
The esoteric science of philosophy could not be more different than historical study than black is from white. There are specific rules of evidence and opinion must be supported by sufficient fact as to stand the test of peer review. You offered no such support. You are entitled to your opinion, but I considered it within the rules of historical practice. Merely believing something doesn't make it true.
You are rambling again. Nonetheless, I do glean that you would not mind battleships in the game if they were neutral to the outcome. A non-firing BB is, essentially, nothing more than landscape (or seascape if you will). It would serve absolutely no function other than being a target. Inasmuch as you perceive BBs to be nothing more than targets, that makes sense to you. Unfortunately, you will find that it makes no sense to anyone else. Why spend resources on something like this? A simple change in the arena set up could harden a CA to be as durable as the Tirpitz.
You seem focused upon the game being unrealistic and even non-historical. Aces High was never intended to truly historical, nor would it be wise to aim for total realism. It is simply an air combat simulator/game that has its basis in historical events, using historical equipment. I'm not sure what the mention of the La-7 and Spitfire XVI implies, but if you are stating that they are unrealistic, you'll have to show how that is.
Your comment; "why do you guys attribute ignorance as part of your mode of argumentation?", assumes that anyone thinks that you are ignorant. On the contrary, I believe you to be anything but ignorant. I do, however, believe that you have drawn incorrect conclusions based upon not grasping the historical relevancy of the Taffy 3/Samar example.
What does need sources cited is your claim that battleships were unimportant. Moreover, you argue in hindsight, a major blunder for a historical researcher. Both Nimitz and Halsey placed great significance upon BBs being attached to fast carrier groups. Why? As I've already hinted; the fear of encountering major enemy surface units (especially at night where the air groups were useless) was genuine and not without justification. That is the reason Spruance ran his task force east at flank speed for six hours after sinking Hiryu. His covering CAs were no match for the might of the Japanese surface fleet that was still intact and undamaged and it was not yet known if Yamamoto had ordered a withdrawal. Indeed, Yamamoto's staff proposed pursuit of the Americans in the hope of a night engagement. Once again, this was more than a perceived danger and Spruance was no fool.
Very early in the Leyte Gulf battle, Kurita's Center Force had taken a beating. First from submarines and then from the full air might of Halsey's Third Fleet. Yet, despite serious losses (including the sinking of Musashi and torpedo damage to Nagato), Kurita was far from beaten. Satisfied that Kurita was retiring, Halsey committed the first of his several blunders and failed to detach his battleships to cover the landing beaches and provide support for Taffy 2 and Taffy 3 (CVE groups tasked with supporting the invasion). Halsey knew where the Japanese battleships were relative to Ozawa's task force. Nonetheless, he felt that it might be possible to close to gunnery range on the Japanese fleet and wanted his big-gun battleships available for that. We should all know what the result of that decision was. At the time, battleships were still considered major fleet assets, and this is clearly reflected in their use and deployment.
My regards,
Widewing
dangit im going home to get tylenol all of your big words hurts my head.
-
guys all of us who want this we need to keep the post going, but we cant just randomly talk so lets try to improve on my idea.
-
wow you guys know something I never new? All of the battleships up to the Class with the West Virginia had 14" guns. I always thought 14" guns stopped after the New York Class. :aok
-
Of course, the fact that Widewing was once in the navy (and probably has as firm a grasp of U.S. naval doctrine as any of us are likely to have) is of far less importance than the fact that you don't like the fact no one else argues in the "epistemological holist" :rolleyes: style you prefer.
I "get the point" you are trying to argue, I just don't think you are correct.
No, my method of disagreement is not personal attack. It's just that you perceive it that way.
As impartial observer who's just now reading this thread, I agree that no personal attack was technically made on impakt (regardless of the content of your arguments), but the choice of words on the previous page was very poor. Normally, if you want to complain about others get emotional or making unsound arguments, you refrain from invective as a demonstration of level-headedness.
-
Imapkt you are a booby. Here area a couple things that make you a pompous donkey.
- One: You say you aren't dogmatic but you will not give up. Hmmmmm?
- Two: You said earlier that you aren't making personal attacks against Widewing. Although you made that your goal in your first point.
- Three: I'll explain the importance of supporting shipps like bb's and ca's and de's; they support the cv. Yeah the cv's were decicive but look at it like football. The ca's and de's are the linemen and the bb's are the linebackers. If you take the bb's out you might be fine, but you lose your last line of defence; you lose the strongest part. If you take out all the supporting ships (linemen), your cv(QB) gets destroyed(sacked).
- And hey the only blowhards here are you and tu madre!
-
Why no "Fact" will decide our dispute
First, I don't know who appointed Widewing the arbiter of the 'received historical view', nor do I acknowledge his right to assign the burden of proof. He likes that "Hint:" modus operandi[got my Latin in!!] saw him use it last night in Late War to call someone an "idiot" on the Rook channel.
Indeed, I did refer to a pilot as an idiot.... However, he exceeded the minimum standards for said classification. Thus, he was bestowed with the honor immediately that he may matriculate to a higher level upon the opening of a seat. :rock
I confess that I do have a tendency to be blunt... Perhaps viewed as a character flaw by those with tender sensibilities.
I have no doubt that you are a bright and well educated individual. That is all good. However, it is likely to be insufficient by itself within the context of historical debate. Like Philosophy, historical research, study and analysis has its own set of disciplines and methodologies. They exist for good purpose, that a standard may exist that is recognized within the body of the academic community.
Having said that, my manner of debate certainly may have appeared smug, condescending and self-righteous. It is pompous of me to hold you to a standard that you cannot be expected to comply with. I am somewhat ashamed to see myself flirting with what I have always detested; the ever "self-important" scholarly windbag, with the overbearing need to remind everyone of their genius. My apologies for being unfair in applying standards to a friendly debate.
My regards,
Widewing
-
<S> Impakt
well said sir. <S>
while i would love to see Iowa class BB's added, i can understand the reasoning for excluding them. I personally think it would be an interesting addition, if they added the Iowas in addition to other surface vessels.
-
Snip
I think my sarcasm detector just got a hernia. ;) :D
<S> Widewing
-
Here's an idea, don't know about feasibility...
Why not make the CV groups ability to be steered like a Field Gun? Make another position in the field gun selection screen. You would turn the CV, and then let it go. Much like a field gun, it would resort to an auto-direction upon being abandoned. This auto direction would not be akin to moving in a certain direction, but having the rudders dead straight.
-
Bump for Mclovin.
-
Sure,
After this is added ;)
(http://bucketfoot-al.tripod.com/DinoModels/yamato.jpg)
-
Sure,
After this is added ;)
(http://bucketfoot-al.tripod.com/DinoModels/yamato.jpg)
would that be a ground vehicle, ship, or plane?
-
it would be the Yamato
-
ohhhhhhhhhhh
-
dude, wtf happened to the other 9 pages? :lol
-
dude, wtf happened to the other 9 pages? :lol
?????????????????????
-
sure but they are a bit small.
Not when you're standing next to it. It's the only BB I've been to, nice ship and museum.
-
crusiers arnt enough!
well said sir. <S>
while i would love to see Iowa class BB's added. I personally think it would be an interesting addition, if they added the Iowa.
-
we need bb 63 the uuss missouri japan surrendered on that ship :rock ;) :noid :rofl :aok :lol :O :D :salute :pray
-
AnD t3h l33t n00k :noid
-
AnD t3h l33t n00k :noid
A battlenookship?
-
no no a
b4tt13sh1pn00k!!
-
Wow! Widewing and Impackt your knowledge makes my 2 years of reading books from the 6th to 8th grade and watching history channel since kindergarten just fun facts. I thought I was a pretty smart person for World War 2 history. I thought I knew what I needed to know and I thought that I could at least talk on par with historians. I don't think I can match up with you guys and that my opinions will completely smashed like a fly and burnt like a marshmallow here I go. :cry
Well first we need to look at what battleships accomplished during the war. I do not no of any major Battleship conflicts were battleships made any major contributions. I do know of many conflicts were battleships were easily sunk by aircraft. Pearl Harbor, Taranto, the British attack on the French fleet, etc. Also flak guns on battleships still couldn't stop the enemy. The Yamato with some of the most advanced anti-aircraft guns was easily sunk with only minor losses to the Americans. I know of no incident were battleships actually were able to survive by themselves if attacked by aircraft. The Bismarck was crippled because it couldn't shoot down a biplane. I would have to say that battleships played no major role in World War 2 and I do not know of them serving any major purpose besides supporting invasions which could also be done by other means. If either of you can pull up anywhere were BBs played a decisive role I would like to see it. I have to say battleships were simply figureheads of power kind of like the queen of England. They were really expensive valuable ships that had a lot of time put into them and if they were sunk would be considered as a large loss.
I bet you could make a pretty good book out of this post.
:O Look on my face as I as I wait for widewing's flyswatter of ultimate knowledge to crush me.
-
i like the idear of a battle ship there are not enough sea ops in this game :salute
-
Thanks for searching. :D
-
North Carolina class not a bad choice either
-
I'm in!!! :aok
P.S. hope no one asks for the Yamato or enemy CV go BOOM in 1 shot.
-
I'm going with New York Class battle ships (BB-35) as they have strong main gun armament, and excellent anti-air protection. It could act as it's own fleet.
I'd also like to implement Flood Control. If you wanna keep the ship after X # of hits or X amount of damage, you gotta lets say........ move a little parachute d00d to find the leak, then fix it. Would be a newer aspect of the game.
-
i would trade the battleship for the cruiser anyday good post
ch05 :aok