Iowa Class Battleships

[McLovin1]

Not even the BB-35 (Texas)? 


Well, I was just trying to keep things simpler. 

Every1 wants their own ship. I just dont want it to be too uber. 

dude WWII was all about trying to out uber the uber of the other guys uber.

[Motherland]

If that we're true, Germany would have one the war. A whole lot more went into it than how uber your equipment was.

[McLovin1]

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.

[Motherland]

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.

[angelsandair]

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. 

[McLovin1]

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. 

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

[DaddyAck]

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. 

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.

[Widewing]

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

[DaddyAck]

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




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.



Had Germany used her naval assets properly, I believe the Atlantic could have been different.

[Widewing]

For a well rounded and smart analysis of WWII battleships, visit this website:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm


My regards,

Widewing

[angelsandair]

umm.... refer to my thread called "carriers" This could be an add on to the idea. 

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. 

[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.

  (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

[Widewing]

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

[SuBWaYCH]

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.

[C(Sea)Bass]

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