Author Topic: Battleships?  (Read 3126 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
Battleships?
« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2004, 07:38:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AdmRose
Sunk by biplane torpedo bombers...how sad


Just about... Bismarck's rudder was jammed by a Stringbag's torpedo. When the Brits found her, she was running in slow circles and HMS Rodney and her cohorts blasted her into a floating wreck. She was finished by torpedos from RN Cruisers.

Actually, Bismarck's shallow armor belt did her in. A hit from the Prince of Wales caused a serious fuel leak, thus requiring the Bismarck to abandon her mission and sail for Brest for repair. It was during that transit when she was attacked by Ark Royal's Swordfish torpedo bombers and disabled.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Battleships?
« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2004, 10:01:22 PM »
According to my sources the hit that the PoW scored on the Bismarck that pierced her forward fuel tanks was well forward of the armor belt line.

"Bismarck had received three hits altogether. One had carried away the captain's motor-boat amidships, damaged the aircraft launching gear, landed in the sea beyond without exploding. The second had also struck amidships, penetrated the ship's side beneath the armored belt, destroyed one of the dynamoes, put No. 2 boiler-room and its two boilers out of action, wounded five men by scalding, caused some flooding. The third and most serious hit had struck the port bow about the level of the water-line, penetrated two oil tanks, come out the starboard side without exploding. This hit not only let sea-water into the oil tanks and quantities of oil into the sea, but knocked out the suction valves, and cut off from the engines a further thousand tons of oil."  (from http://www.bismarck-class.dk website)

This incredibly lucky hit combined with the Stringbag's torpedo hit simply points out, to me, that Bismarck's luck was all used up on the fatal hit to the Hood.
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #62 on: March 22, 2004, 11:22:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
Bismarck/Tirpitz were generally second rate ships, little more than updated Baden's dating back to 1916....Iowas would have butchered them. In general terms, Europe produced nothing to compare with the Iowas and Yamatos. Even the KG V class was markedly inferior to the North Carolina class of the same vintage. Note also that the Brits adopted the American radar fire-control suite for their BBs, simply because it produced accurate shooting at ranges far beyond the effective shooting range via optics.

My regards,

Widewing


I'm not going to challenge Widewing's information, I never would have considered Bismark second rate, although, it was an early war BB and the Iowas...yeah...good point...thanks for the data!

Gainsie

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #63 on: March 22, 2004, 11:24:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AdmRose
Been there, spent a night in her Junior Officer's Quarters...then- girlfriend and I had some fun in the forward ammunition hold...great trip :aok


hehe I know that forward hold, when I worked at the Academy I had nearly free run of the place. I also have pics of her being towed up naragansett bay after getting repaired in 199..something...she even fired a 5" as she passed fort Adams, in newport, RI.

Wish I could find those pics!


Gainsie

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #64 on: March 22, 2004, 11:27:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AdmRose
Tributes aside...the Arizona was a Pennsylvania  class battleship...at the war's onset the most her 14" guns could hope to do was annoy her Japanese counterparts...granted she (sorta) offset her small 14" guns by carrying 12 of them as opposed to the later BBs' main batteries of 9. However, her max speed was only 21 knots, making her unable to keep up with any sort of carrier group, even the early war ones. Heck, even the damaged Yorktown at Midway could make 20 knots.


All of the pre-war BBs had negligible AA defense. She'd be a sitting duck, literally. Better that the ships got retooled after december 7..had they been sunk at sea we would have had to replace 6-8, nnot only rebuild...

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #65 on: March 22, 2004, 04:08:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Absolutely, positively 100% accurate and correct.  It would have been more like who would have fought for the right to take on the Iowa's.

IMHO I said Warspite mainly for aesthetics and her war history.  I would like to see a BB in AH look like the stereotypical BB, the QE's or the late-war Tennesee/Colorado/New Mexico classes.  

I have had the priviledge of serving actively in the U.S.N. while we had BB's in service, namely the USS Iowa, and seeing an Iowa-class underway in the Med. she reminded me more of a thoroughbred than a warhorse.  Of course, if you really want to get badass just go for the Montana's that were supposed to be made after the Iowa's.  Talk about truly devastating.


I saw the Iowa while she was mothballed in newport, Ri, along with the Forrestal and Saratoga. Do you or anyone have the dimensions on Iowa and Montana class BBs?

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Battleships?
« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2004, 05:02:10 PM »
Iowa class design characteristics:

Displacement: 45,000 tons (standard)

Dimensions: 887' (length overall); 108' 2" (maximum beam)

Powerplant: 212,000 horsepower steam turbines, producing a 33 knot maximum speed

Armament (Main Battery): Nine 16"/50 guns in three triple turrets

Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty 5"/38 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship).




Montana class design characteristics:

Displacement: 60,500 tons (standard); 70,965 tons (full load)

Dimensions: 921' 3" (length overall); 121' 2" (maximum beam)

Powerplant: 172,000 horsepower steam turbines, producing a 28 knot maximum speed

Armament (Main Battery): Twelve 16"/50 guns in four triple turrets

Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty 5"/54 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship)


To get more info on US battleships click here:
-->CLICK<--
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline Jester

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2753
Battleships?
« Reply #67 on: March 22, 2004, 05:07:15 PM »
SPECIFICATIONS: IOWA CLASS BB
Displacement: 48,500 tons standard, 57,450 tons war load.
Dimensions: Length: 887', 3" Beam, Overall: 108', 2" Draught: 38'
Machinery: 4-Shaft geared steam turbines delivering 212,000 shp.
(158,088 KW)
Speed: 33 Knots
Armour: Belt: 12'2"(310mm), Decks: 1.5" - 4.7"(38-120mm), Turrets: 18"(457mm)
Armament: 9x 16"/50cal.(406mm), 20x 5"/54cal. DP(127mm), 60x 40mm, 60x 20mm AA guns.
Aircraft: 3 (2 Catapults)
Complement: 1,921 Officers and Men.

NOTE: USS Missouri BB-63 had a  slightly heavier displacement and was longer than the rest of the Iowa's.

SPECIFICATIONS: MONTANA CLASS BB
Displacement: 60,500 tons standard; 70,783 tons full load
Dimensions: 925 x 121 x 36.6 feet/281.9 x 36.9 x 11.2 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 600 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 172,000 shp.
Speed: 28 Knots
Complement: 2,149 Officers and Men.
Armor: 10.2-16.1 inch belt, 6-7.35 inch deck, 18-21.3 inch barbettes, 10-22.5 inch turrets, 7.4-18 inch CT
Aircraft: 2 catapults, 3 floatplanes; no hangar
Armament: 4 triple 16"/50cal, 10 dual 5"/54cal DP, 10 quad 40 mm AA, 56 single 20 mm AA
« Last Edit: March 22, 2004, 05:18:33 PM by Jester »
Lt. JESTER
VF-10 "GRIM REAPERS"

WEBSITE:  www.VF10.org

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #68 on: March 23, 2004, 10:37:26 AM »
Thanks Jester!  :aok

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #69 on: March 23, 2004, 10:41:33 AM »
oops!

Diablo sorry I didnt see your earlier post with same data. My mistake :(

Given the armament for air defense, On one hand I never want to see the BBin AH. OTOH, I't sure would be fun to  man those guns against suiciders, et. al!

Offline Rasker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1265
Battleships?
« Reply #70 on: March 24, 2004, 06:01:27 PM »
If USS Massachusetts was "Big Mame" and West Virginia was "WeeVee", what other battleships had nicknames?  Would North Carolina be "Mean Nancy" [NC}? :)

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Battleships?
« Reply #71 on: March 24, 2004, 06:29:06 PM »
I would rather see BBs than submarines that people keep insisting are coming to AH2. Only thing I would like about submarines is launching torpedos but would be near impossible to hit a moving CV with the lazer guided ack and all.

Offline Jester

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2753
Battleships?
« Reply #72 on: March 24, 2004, 08:56:01 PM »
USN WW2 BATTLESHIP NICKNAMES

USS Arkansas BB33: "Old Arky"
USS Texas BB35: "Mighty T"
USS Nevada BB-36: "Cheer Up Ship"
USS Pennsylvania BB-38: "Mighty Penn", "Pennsy", "Old Falling Apart"
USS Mississippi BB-41: "Ole Miss"
USS Idaho BB-42: "Big Spud"
USS Tennessee BB-43: "Big T", "Tenny Maru", "The Rebel (Ship)"
USS California BB-44: "The Prune Barge"
USS Maryland BB-46: "Fighting Mary", "Old Mary
USS West Virginia BB-48: "WeeVee"
USS North Carolina BB-55: "The Showboat"
USS Washington BB-56: "Mighty W"
USS South Dakota BB-57: "Sodak", "Battleship X"
USS Massachusetts BB-59: "Big Mamie"
USS Alabama BB-60: "Big Bama", "Mighty A", "Lucky A"
USS New Jersey BB-62: "Big J", Black Dragon"
USS Missouri BB-63: "Big Mo", "Mighty Mo"
Lt. JESTER
VF-10 "GRIM REAPERS"

WEBSITE:  www.VF10.org

Offline MOIL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
      • http://www.ltar.org
Ships
« Reply #73 on: March 25, 2004, 04:07:44 PM »
All these ideas for more ships, guns & manability is great!
Being a gunner type player in AH I would like to see a lot more {at least what the ship was originally armed with} gun platforms that are manned by players. Single, duel & quad mounts were all very common on the WWII ships.

I say make it as "real" as possable:eek:

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Battleships?
« Reply #74 on: March 25, 2004, 04:31:29 PM »
Just what you need, Moil, more powerful weapons...

you do just fine with the current model, your request is denied! :)