Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on March 07, 2011, 10:15:20 PM
-
This could be fun to take out on the sea spawns. :pray
(http://i51.tinypic.com/i1kyfo.jpg)
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2lm1mo0.jpg)
(http://i55.tinypic.com/11gqa1h.jpg)
(http://i54.tinypic.com/bhyvpx.jpg)
(http://i53.tinypic.com/zk4nxv.jpg)
This had a large set of launchers for the British RP-3 60 lb (27 kg), 3 in (76 mm) rockets mounted on the covered-over tank deck. The full set of launchers was "in excess of" 1,000 and reloads totaling 5,000 rockets were kept below. The firepower was claimed to be equivalent to 80 light cruisers or 200 destroyers.
The method of operation was to anchor off the target beach, pointing towards the shore. The distance to the shore was then measured by radar and the elevation of the launchers set accordingly. The crew then vanished below (apart from the commanding officer who retreated to a special cubby hole to control things) and the launch was then set off electrically. The launch could comprise the entire set or individual ranks of rockets. A full reload was a very labor-intensive operation and at least one LCT(R) went alongside a cruiser and got a working party from the larger ship to assist in the process. Used in both theaters, in the pacific, Atlantic, and the Mediterranean.
please stand by for more statistics and history info (hard to find so help out)
-
+1 but where would we use it? wont do much but launch missles at a base for about a minute then die.
-
+1 but where would we use it? wont do much but launch missles at a base for about a minute then die.
True it would only be able to fire once then run, however the devastation specifically on the town would be severe. Plus this baby is a bit heavier than our PT so it’s going to take a quite a bit of rounds to sink or at least big ones so you have time to get back to the spawn and land. They were used in both theaters, in the pacific, Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Im pretty sure they had some sort of AA or at least a few did...
-
+1 but where would we use it? wont do much but launch missles at a base for about a minute then die.
says they had 5000 rockets below deck for reload, so a total of 6000 launches, launching 1000 at a time....
-
LCT(R)
:O
+1
-
:x :x :x
:O :rock
-
Your math is of brotha.
says they had 5000 rockets below deck for reload, so a total of 6000 launches, launching 1000 at a time....
-
Your math is of brotha.
5,000 below deck, plus 1,000 currently on deck...
I think his math is right? :headscratch:
-
5,000 below deck, plus 1,000 currently on deck...
I think his math is right? :headscratch:
read it again...
says they had 5000 rockets below deck for reload, so a total of 6000 launches, launching 1000 at a time....
if they have 6000 total, launching 1000 at a time...how many actual launches are there?
-
This had a large set of launchers for the British RP-3 60 lb (27 kg), 3 in (76 mm) rockets mounted on the covered-over tank deck. The full set of launchers was "in excess of" 1,000 and reloads totaling 5,000 rockets were kept below. The firepower was claimed to be equivalent to 80 light cruisers or 200 destroyers.
:headscratch:
Perhaps you're the one who should be reading the OP over again.
'reloads totaling 5,000 rockers were kept below'.
This implies that the total number of reloads kept below deck
totals 5,000 rockets, in addition to the 1,000 on deck.
read it again...
if they have 6000 total, launching 1000 at a time...how many actual launches are there?
Therefore, yes, a total of 6,000 launched rockets would be accurate
according to this information.
-
lol joe...think "launch sequence", "launch wave", etc...if you have 6000 total launching 1000 per sequence...that's 6 launches.
-
The launch could comprise the entire set or individual ranks of rockets. A full reload was a very labor-intensive operation and at least one LCT(R) went alongside a cruiser and got a working party from the larger ship to assist in the process. Used in both theaters, in the pacific, Atlantic, and the Mediterranean.
Yes, there could be six individual launches, however the total
number of launched rockets still would hit 6,000.
Your math is of brotha.
read it again...
if they have 6000 total, launching 1000 at a time...how many actual launches are there?
Which would mean that Skyguns has done his math correctly and
both of you have skewed it in a similar fashion, as far as I care.
-
uh huh...
-
+1
-
Sheesh eJoe....... We are just playing with it... BUT.... technically, Gyrene explains the situation correctly. The way he wrote it, 1000 rockets was a single launch. Nothing more to say, it is just the written English language and there is no ambiguity. Now at the same time, we all realize what he meant, but it's more fun this way.
Take a pill. :neener:
-
eskimojoe before noon...
(http://www.prankabuddy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/give-me-coffee-and-no-one-gets-hurt-office-sign.jpg)
-
lol joe...think "launch sequence", "launch wave", etc...if you have 6000 total launching 1000 per sequence...that's 6 launches.
Um.. if you had 6000 rockets and you fired them....you'd have 6,000 launches. Unless we think communism-style, and each rocket isn't an individual...
Definition of LAUNCH
transitive verb
1
a : to throw forward : hurl b : to release, catapult, or send off (a self-propelled object) <launch a rocket>
English sure is a funny language.
-
Um.. if you had 6000 rockets and you fired them....you'd have 6,000 launches. Unless we think communism-style, and each rocket isn't an individual...
English sure is a funny language.
appears to go over your head... :rolleyes:
-
appears to go over your head... :rolleyes:
You obviously can't take being chided, unsurprisingly. Not my fault the language has too much "nuance" for you.
For instance, If someone says... "I'm going to launch 1000 rockets." "Launch" is not plural. "Rockets" is. You're wrong.
-
Sheesh eJoe....... We are just playing with it... BUT.... technically, Gyrene explains the situation correctly. The way he wrote it, 1000 rockets was a single launch. Nothing more to say, it is just the written English language and there is no ambiguity. Now at the same time, we all realize what he meant, but it's more fun this way.
Take a pill. :neener:
his statement was this..
says they had 5000 rockets below deck for reload, so a total of 6000 launches, launching 1000 at a time....
While it is a bit ambiguous and could definitely be stated more clearly, "launches" and "launching" are mutually exclusive to each other in that statement. Meaning "launching 1000 at a time" has nothing to do with "6000 launches" in that statement. Especially since he stated "a total of". That should have cleared your "brotha math", which I'm not sure what exactly you mean by.
-
You obviously can't take being chided, unsurprisingly. Not my fault the language has too much "nuance" for you.
For instance, If someone says... "I'm going to launch 1000 rockets." "Launch" is not plural. "Rockets" is. You're wrong.
really now...if someone says i have 6000 rockets and i can launch up to 1000 at a time in one sequence...what does that tell you?
maybe rewording it...i have 6000 rockets total and i can launch up to 1000 in a single wave...
i'll do 4th grade for you...johnny has 6000 rockets...he can fire off 1000 rockets simultaneously...how many times can johnny simultaneously launch 1000 rockets?
this would be opposed to...johnny has 6000 rockets...he can prepare 1000 rockets to fire and launch them 1 at a time...how many times can johnny launch 1 rocket?
-
really now...if someone says i have 6000 rockets and i can launch up to 1000 at a time in one sequence...what does that tell you?
maybe rewording it...i have 6000 rockets total and i can launch up to 1000 in a single wave...
i'll do 4th grade for you...johnny has 6000 rockets...he can fire off 1000 rockets simultaneously...how many times can johnny simultaneously launch 1000 rockets?
Launch is a transitive verb describing one action. The noun after it may be plural, but it determines the number of singular actions.
Go ahead and do some reading. You're wrong. You're attempting to turn a transitive verb into a noun. The only way "launch" is a noun is where you put a canoe in the water, or if you're talking about a powerboat.
Also, I did not belittle you. It's not my fault you're incorrect. The word "launch" has no inference to "sequence" or "wave" by definition. There is no implicit meaning that matches your reference.
-
Launch is a transitive verb describing one action. The noun after it may be plural, but it determines the number of singular actions.
Go ahead and do some reading. You're wrong. You're attempting to turn a transitive verb into a noun. The only way "launch" is a noun is where you put a canoe in the water.
Also, I did not belittle you. It's not my fault you're incorrect.
uh huh...i don't recall trying to say launch was a noun...in your haste to be right at all costs...you missed the important words within the sentences i.e. contextual usage.
and so you don't mistake the usage again...in order for the word to be used as a noun..."the act of launching"..."the act or instance of launching"...which is to propel with force, or set into motion.
-
OH GEEZ........
We have gone so far off topic......................
Can we Launch a new thread?
:bolt:
-
i'll take nouns for $500 alex... :D
-
This device utilized a Redstone Missile "bob-tail" engine, with the trust chamber removed and was positioned next to the now famous Redstone Interim Test Stand in 1953.........................
i'll take nouns for $500 alex... :D
I should warn our players, the correct answer is a Proper Noun. :old:
-
says they had 5000 rockets below deck for reload, so a total of 6000 launches, launching 1000 at a time....
+10000000 then...
-
+ :aok
-
OH GEEZ........
We have gone so far off topic......................
Can we Launch a new thread?
:bolt:
Its tempting...
-
I should warn our players, the correct answer is a Proper Noun. :old:
:headscratch: darn, i guess i lost on jeopardy :lol
-
plus one
:P
-
ewww, sorry Mr. G........ The correct answer is.... The Cold Flow Test Stand. :lol
:headscratch: darn, i guess i lost on jeopardy :lol
:salute
-
I think use of the word "salvo" would help clear up the launch math. Just my opinion though. Also could you imagine how long you could continuously rain death and destruction if this boat was introduced with the salvo and delay adjustment ability most bombers use in game?
-
I think use of the word "salvo" would help clear up the launch math. Just my opinion though. Also could you imagine how long you could continuously rain death and destruction if this boat was introduced with the salvo and delay adjustment ability most bombers use in game?
Interesting, never thought of that.....
-
How would you guy think this would be aimed, because i don't want it to be like the pt. It needs some kind of "land mode"
-
+1000. Accuracy wasn't real great, but that just equates to a better spread of rockets over an area. Also imagine the damage this thing could do to an enemy CV. 1000 rockets = PLENTY of them for ranging the target before you cut loose.
-
What do you think the time to reload after a 1000 rocket launch would be? :P
-
IDK, maybe an hour or two if they're hauling.
-
What do you think the time to reload after a 1000 rocket launch would be? :P
30 mins with big good crew but thats a rough estimate.
-
30 mins with big good crew but thats a rough estimate.
take that back, big downfall, "Time for reloading varied from between 9 to 19 hours".
-
Looks like they just use simple steel frames to hold the rockets untill launch. Unless it takes a long time to attach the wire or whatever is used to actually launch them, it can't be THAT long.
did the math and a single person could reload this (at least get the rockets into the launchers) in 9 hours if it takes him about 30 seconds to put each rocket into the launch frame, assuming he doesn't have to carry the rockets out. I'd figure at least 10 people working to reload it.
-
Looks like they just use simple steel frames to hold the rockets until launch. Unless it takes a long time to attach the wire or whatever is used to actually launch them, it can't be THAT long.
did the math and a single person could reload this (at least get the rockets into the launchers) in 9 hours if it takes him about 30 seconds to put each rocket into the launch frame, assuming he doesn't have to carry the rockets out. I'd figure at least 10 people working to reload it.
I suppose however i like many people are looking for simulation over game. My wish has a downfall and i have to accept it. People don't wanna wait 9 hours and 9 hours based on my research is the minimum time. 9-19 hours
-
oh well, we only get 1000 rockets instead of 5000, its still a hell of a lot of firepower.
-
oh well, we only get 1000 rockets instead of 5000, its still a hell of a lot of firepower.
true, and if you think about it, run it like an LVT and you can ressuply it
-
Looks like they just use simple steel frames to hold the rockets untill launch. Unless it takes a long time to attach the wire or whatever is used to actually launch them, it can't be THAT long.
did the math and a single person could reload this (at least get the rockets into the launchers) in 9 hours if it takes him about 30 seconds to put each rocket into the launch frame, assuming he doesn't have to carry the rockets out. I'd figure at least 10 people working to reload it.
Crew might be much lighter, and I doubt you'll hit 30 seconds per rocket when you account for the need to move the rocket from storage to its launcher.
-
But then, a ground crew couldn't re-arm, re-fuel and re-bomb a B-29 in 30 seconds, could they? Nor could they restring the ammo for a P-47-D-40 with 8x50 cals, with 427 rounds each? Methinks that if this thing were implemented for whatever reason, they would cut down (significantly) on the reload time.
-
+1 would be intresting
i could see a 5 min reload being fair
-
well, what about frame rates? if you fire all of those rockets at once, your FPS is going to get rammed in the butt.
i'd still give this a +1 anyways...
-
So you're assuming a crew of 5-6 for a combat ship?
And +1 either way, even if you only get 1000 rockets and no resupps or reloads.
Of course there would have to be some sort of way to aim them relativly accuratly. Perhaps let you get the range and bearing to town with a land gun type system, but make you aim it yourself (adjust the aim by stearing the ship, and adjust range using the c and v keys like on a tank. Maybe some sort of tool to see the range based on the angle of the rocket launch frames).
-
I suppose however i like many people are looking for simulation over game. My wish has a downfall and i have to accept it. People don't wanna wait 9 hours and 9 hours based on my research is the minimum time. 9-19 hours
I doubt the pilots in the game would wait an hour or two to have there planes re-loaded and gassed up either. What is it 20sec's?
Maybe you could drive it around avoiding the SB and others things for 3-4 mins before it reloaded.
-
Oh man, I just realized how hard this thing would be on SB's :lol.
-
Oh man, I just realized how hard this thing would be on SB's :lol.
perk it then. Im sure people wouldnt mind. However you may not need to, there not faster than a PT boat
-
No, but this thing has more range than a PT too. Oh hell, another though. You could completly LEVEL the strats on some maps. No 8"ers, no aircraft, just a group of 20 LST(R)'s salvoing the strat facilities.
-
No, but this thing has more range than a PT too. Oh hell, another though. You could completly LEVEL the strats on some maps. No 8"ers, no aircraft, just a group of 20 LST(R)'s salvoing the strat facilities.
they do have there vulnerabilities tank ace. hardly any AA
-
Yes, but they're not going to show radar either. Draw a 4 mile semicircle around the base and they could be anywhere in there.
-
Yes, but they're not going to show radar either. Draw a 4 mile semicircle around the base and they could be anywhere in there.
do pt boats make a base blink?
-
yes, but CV's don't. 8k off the shore isn't an uncommon distance for CV's to park.
-
yes, but CV's don't. 8k off the shore isn't an uncommon distance for CV's to park.
My idea was that this would be a ship that would be independentlyly used. all guns fire at the pilots command just like a pt boat. therefore would make a flash like a pt boat.
-
yes, but CV's don't. 8k off the shore isn't an uncommon distance for CV's to park.
i still need to search its ranges
-
i still need to search its ranges
range for the 60 lb version is about 1600m(1749.781277 yards) or 0.994193908(nearly 1 mile) miles
and heres 2 dif versions/ammo types we could load maybe?
60 lb Shell, HE/SAP (Semi-armour piercing)
60 lb Shell, HE/GP, (general purpose)
-
Could also fire the US 4.5" and 5" rockets IIRC.
-
range for the 60 lb version is about 1600m(1749.781277 yards) or 0.994193908(nearly 1 mile) miles
and heres 2 dif versions/ammo types we could load maybe?
60 lb Shell, HE/SAP (Semi-armour piercing)
60 lb Shell, HE/GP, (general purpose)
it could be interesting having both
-
I'd say SAP since they're already in the game (typhoon uses HE/SAP rockets).
-
I'd say SAP since they're already in the game (typhoon uses HE/SAP rockets).
but whats the BIG difference, if they count lbs instead of penetration on buildings?
-
They already kill buildings quite nicely. There is damage done from the impact as well as the explosion.
-
They already kill buildings quite nicely. There is damage done from the impact as well as the explosion.
Your the expert
-
Test it yourself. Its the same with shells from tanks. Most shells only have an explosive charge of a couple pounds, yet any of calliber 75mm or greater will kill a town building in 2 rounds.
-
Test it yourself. Its the same with shells from tanks. Most shells only have an explosive charge of a couple pounds, yet any of calliber 75mm or greater will kill a town building in 2 rounds.
THought that AP was solid munitions
-
The rocket is only semi-armor piercing; it still has an HE component. I'm not entirely sure what the weight of the HE charge was, or how armor penetration was achieved, all I know is that it is both High Explosive, and armor penetrating.
IIRC, some US shells also had an HE component that detonated after the armor was penetrated, causing more damage than solid AP shell would.
-
The rocket is only semi-armor piercing; it still has an HE component. I'm not entirely sure what the weight of the HE charge was, or how armor penetration was achieved, all I know is that it is both High Explosive, and armor penetrating.
IIRC, some US shells also had an HE component that detonated after the armor was penetrated, causing more damage than solid AP shell would.
i think we should ave the option of witch one we would want to take
-
The rocket is only semi-armor piercing; it still has an HE component. I'm not entirely sure what the weight of the HE charge was, or how armor penetration was achieved, all I know is that it is both High Explosive, and armor penetrating.
IIRC, some US shells also had an HE component that detonated after the armor was penetrated, causing more damage than solid AP shell would.
well all ap shells have explosives in them armor penetration is useally achieved by having the tip be solid with a delayed fuze by a few mil a secounds so it impacts breaks into the armor then explodes SAP would be a multi purpose rocket not good enough to use strictly against tanks or buildings but inbetween on both
the HE would have a bigger blast radius and more overall dmg but useless against anything with armor but great for killing buildings/guns
more or less differance is HE has a contact tip on the tip which opoun impact makes the shell explode(which brings the question how do tanks bounce he?)
AP has a delayed fuze useally in the back of the shell to go off a very short time after impact and the tip is useally metal so it can break the armor..
at leaste thats what i know as far as how AP works and... on that rocket the warhead is 27kg which is why its called the rp-3/60lb(rocket projectile 3"/60 lb warhead)
-
OK, thanks. So 60lbs is refering to the weight of the warhead, not the overall weight of the rocket.
-
AP is just solid shot APHE has the explosive charge but APHE was discontinued because it dident have the same penetration that AP had due to lower mass of the shell. Speed and mass equal penetration.
-
Allright I'm educated but we have gone off topic just a bit. Which should it take or should we have the option to choose? I would imagine Semi AP would be best for things like shore bats, but he best for towns. AA wise i think some only had 1 5 inch and auto gun.
-
AP is just solid shot APHE has the explosive charge but APHE was discontinued because it dident have the same penetration that AP had due to lower mass of the shell. Speed and mass equal penetration.
u come to this conlcusion how? also our tanks today still use SAPHE rounds which is semi armor pericing high explosive rounds
if you used a solid metal round it would bounce off the tank or go right threw it... it would not actaully destroy the armored target unless u hit a critical part??
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/ArmorPiercingShell.png << click it
1 Light weight ballistic cap << numbers for it
2 Steel alloy piercing shell
3 Desensitized bursting charge (TNT, Trinitrophenol, RDX...)
4 Fuse (set with delay to explode inside the target)
5 Bourrelet (front) and driving band (rear)
-
Wiki isn't a reliable source.
-
Wiki isn't a reliable source.
no but it shows the make up of an AP shell fact is without explosives in the shell all you have is a giant bullet...
a bullet is offten solid metal.. a shell is just that a shell with explosives inside of it..
An armour piercing shell is a type of ammunition designed to penetrate armour. In naval warfare and older anti-tank shells, the shell had to withstand the shock of punching through armour plating. Shells designed for this purpose had a greatly strengthened case with a specially hardened and shaped nose, and a much smaller bursting charge. Some smaller calibre AP shells have an inert filling, or incendiary charge in place of the HE bursting charge. The AP shell is now very rarely seen except in naval usage, and is not commonly used there
-
this is becoming irrelevant, can we please continue who's for and not for the lctr?
-
+1 if the artty idea gets shot down, I need something to take out SB's quickly. And +1 even if our next addition is the Hummel.
-
+1 if the artty idea gets shot down, I need something to take out SB's quickly. And +1 even if our next addition is the Hummel.
Rockets are your friend :noid
-
read it again...
if they have 6000 total, launching 1000 at a time...how many actual launches are there?
6,000 assuming no duds. :noid :aok :bolt:
-
Just found a video of them firing these beasts... :O
http://ww.vbox7.com/play:2c750483
-
LCT(R)? No thanks, much more suitable things out there we can get.
-
WOW does that vbox load slow!
-
lol, yeah it really does.