Design your BB for Pacific War...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Design your BB for Pacific War...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Design your BB for Pacific War...

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 10:56:53 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

What sort of features you'd have in BB if you'd be responsible to have it finished in Dec 1941 (takes years of time to complete one anyway) ? I'd like some features of Bismarck and lot of Iowa (even when later design). But main concern would be ability for modifications and speed without sacrificing armour protection. They achieved that in Bismarck (but by using quite uneliable engines) and of course in Iowa years later. (And no, I'm not Bismarck-fan, even though I think it was very fine design for utterly flawed doctrine (Kreutzer-krieg..Cruiser War where you use your surface ships as raiders against enemy convoys).

So...you have to design BB in 1938 to be ready for war in Dec 1941 for Japan, UK or USA. You can use a little hindsight like importance of CV and air threat. What kind of BB you'd design ?

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 3/5/2007 11:13:26 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:20:49 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Mine would have a 150 foot deck and hanger space for 75 fighters.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 2

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:24:24 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Mine would have a 150 foot deck and hanger space for 75 fighters.

Shinano-fan ?

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 3

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:31:25 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

I'll just take a North Carolina. Decent speed and protection, excellent main and secondary armament, and with enough deck space for a ton of AAA to be added to what's already carried.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 4

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:39:21 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

How about South Dakota class ? (one of my favourites) USS South Dakota was launched in 7 June 1941 even when not operational until 1942.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 5

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:43:17 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

SoDak's are my favorite looking BB as well..., short, squat, and purposfull. But they are cramped and lack deck space compared to the North Carolina's. And up-gunning the AAA really requires deckspace.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 6

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:53:24 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

I think they do have larger percent of ship under heavy armour, though. It's trade-off anyway. If I recall right, Bismarck was relatively better armoured than most ships...at least according to this book:

http://www.panorstedt.se/templates/Agency/Book.aspx?id=41793

Most BBs had about 30+ % (32-37%) of area/space covered by heavy armour and IIRC, Bismarck had 42% without sacrificing speed. But those turbines were unreliable even when very effective for their size.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 7

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:02:17 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think they do have larger percent of ship under heavy armour, though. It's trade-off anyway.

Mostly it was to enable the mounting of an internal, sloped armored belt rather than the North Carolina's exterior one. And like I said, the biggest single demand on WWII era ships was for increased AAA. SoDak's were built to such tight margins that they had to lose two secondary mounts to be equipped as flagships.

Bismarck's can really only be compared to the Iowa's or the Vangard. They didn't even try to meet treaty requirements so it's unfair to compare them with designs that did.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 8

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:12:25 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Well..since countries cheated in Washington Treaty agreements, I think it's fair to include ships that are bigger than agreed. Thus, gloves are off, so to speak..

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 3/5/2007 12:28:47 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 9

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:24:16 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

Bismarck was not well armored. Her main turret armor was penetrable at ANY range by ANY enemy battleship gun. How many of her peers shared that weakness? Almost the entirety of her hull above the waterline was penetrable by battleship fire at any range. It may be said that Bismarck was well armored, but that would apply only to medium or small shells, or large HE shells. In a battleship contest, she is not well protected. The armor deck slope behind the belt is nearly impenetrable at short range, but there's not much good in that. A large percentage of her waterline is armored, but given the modest height of the belt and the very low position of the armor deck, her percentage of protected buoyancy is nothing special. She has a nice, thick conning tower. Her steering gear, ironically enough, is well protected. But she would not be a top choice for me if I were to be in a battleship duel.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 10

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:26:29 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

So in that case we should compare the "cheaters" only with each other? In that case, the Roma's lose; the Bismarck's win the speed prize, and the Yamato's everything else.

Seriously..., the Iowa's were what the US produced when the "gloves were off"..., and they blow the doors off the competition. If you are going to judge thing's with some degree of level playing field than you need to look at the competing designs on a value-per-ton basis. Obviously if I have almost 30% more tonnage to play with I should produce a ship 30% better than yours. On that basis I think the Bismarck loses out to the North Carolina hands down.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 11

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:28:32 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

My pet project for a treaty battleship is one armed with nine 14in guns. A super-heavy shell design would provide shells weighing 1810 lbs--that's heavier than Bismarck's 15-inchers. I believe you could combine 30 knots with respectable armor in such a ship and have a well-balanced design.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 12

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:32:06 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Bismarck was not well armored. Her main turret armor was penetrable at ANY range by ANY enemy battleship gun. How many of her peers shared that weakness? Almost the entirety of her hull above the waterline was penetrable by battleship fire at any range. It may be said that Bismarck was well armored, but that would apply only to medium or small shells, or large HE shells. In a battleship contest, she is not well protected. The armor deck slope behind the belt is nearly impenetrable at short range, but there's not much good in that. A large percentage of her waterline is armored, but given the modest height of the belt and the very low position of the armor deck, her percentage of protected buoyancy is nothing special. She has a nice, thick conning tower. Her steering gear, ironically enough, is well protected. But she would not be a top choice for me if I were to be in a battleship duel.

True that. Bismarck was made for flawed Cruiser-War concept, but still had more weight allocated to armour protection than others (42% IIRC). Thinner protection spread larger vs. thicker with less coverage was the dilemma for designers those days before CV power was realized. I do like powerplants of Bismarck for their power to weight ratio..but they were somewhat unreliable as usual with new concepts.

With hindsight, she'd been fine for USN in Pacific War.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 3/5/2007 12:48:12 PM >

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 13

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:38:27 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

My pet project for a treaty battleship is one armed with nine 14in guns. A super-heavy shell design would provide shells weighing 1810 lbs--that's heavier than Bismarck's 15-inchers. I believe you could combine 30 knots with respectable armor in such a ship and have a well-balanced design.

I believe the AP rounds for the Bismarck's 15" guns weighed in at about 2,000 lbs. From the overall damage reports (especially from PoW) a significant number appear to have been duds.

problem with higher speeds is they require hull length and/or large boosts in hp..., both of which cost extra tonnage. and one of which stretches the area needing armor. High speed is probably overrated in most cases. Ships rarely use it due to the fuel consumption; except for Carriers launching and landing A/C and DD's (notorious fuel-hogs) zipping about on screening duties.

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 14

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 12:42:22 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

I think what WWII BB in Pacific need is high *cruise speed*, not necessarily high top speed.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 15

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 1:24:22 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Bismarck was made for flawed Cruiser-War concept, but still had more weight allocated to armour protection than others (42% IIRC).

One of the strange things about the Bismarck project is that there was no clear mission intended for the design. The head of the KM Fleet Dept wrote c1938 that he could find no documentation specifying an intended role for Bismarck, Scharnhorst, or Hipper. I believe the Germans were simply building battleships for the sake of building battleships.

quote:

I do like powerplants of Bismarck for their power to weight ratio

I think the prime virtue of the Bismarck class was its mobility: good speed, satisfactory sea-keeping, and sufficient range.

quote:

I believe the AP rounds for the Bismarck's 15" guns weighed in at about 2,000 lbs. From the overall damage reports (especially from PoW) a significant number appear to have been duds.

Bismarck's shells weighed 800kg. Probably three of these hit PoW. One passed through the compass platform where the thickest plating was 1in. This would have been enough to trigger the shell's fuze, but the shell would have been long gone before it exploded, and in fact, it did not explode while aboard PoW. One shell hit a crane and exploded normally. The third shell landed short, tumbled wildly underwater, and entered PoW's hull nearly backwards. This was a dud, but we don't have enough information to blame a faulty shell; the extreme violence of the tumble might have interfered with any shell's fuze action. One other shell of unknown caliber passed through the superstructure without pursting on board, much like the compass platform hit. On the other hand, I think all of the hits by Prinz Eugen showed a flawed performance.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 16

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 1:56:17 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Bismarck was not well armored. Her main turret armor was penetrable at ANY range by ANY enemy battleship gun. How many of her peers shared that weakness? Almost the entirety of her hull above the waterline was penetrable by battleship fire at any range. It may be said that Bismarck was well armored, but that would apply only to medium or small shells, or large HE shells. In a battleship contest, she is not well protected. The armor deck slope behind the belt is nearly impenetrable at short range, but there's not much good in that. A large percentage of her waterline is armored, but given the modest height of the belt and the very low position of the armor deck, her percentage of protected buoyancy is nothing special. She has a nice, thick conning tower. Her steering gear, ironically enough, is well protected. But she would not be a top choice for me if I were to be in a battleship duel.

So the Bismarck's non-penetrated hull (as discovered by underwater observation few years ago) was due to swift closing of British ships (and thus them firing in flat trajectory that completely riddeled the Bismarcks superstructure but failed to penetrate the hull)?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 17

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 1:58:55 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Coming into this thread a little late. If it was 1938 and I knew what was most needed in the upcoming war, I would cancel all BB projects not currently under construction and dedicate all capital ship yards to building fast fleet carriers.

If the US had 6 new CVs working up when Pearl Harbor happened, the Pacific War would have been much shorter.

The battleship still captures the imagination today. The big guns on a battleship are larger bore than just about any land based gun ever built. A few German guns were bigger, but they had very limited use. Leopold (aka Anzio Annie), one of the most famous was only 280mm, which is only around 11 inches.

Japan had a tremendous capital tied up in big battleships that saw very limited use. The Musashi, which almost broke the back of Japan's economy, only fired her main batteries once in anger. And that was at TBF Avengers. She never got within sight of an Allied ship.

The Yamato had a similarly useless life. She was only used for her intended purpose once in the Battle Off Samar where she and other battleships attacked a group of escort carriers. The largest American surface ship to oppose them was a destroyer. Hardly an even fight. Tactically it was a victory, of course, strategically it was a disaster. It achieved virtually nothing in the end.

I only count three times battleships squared off against one another in WW II. In all of them aircraft played a significant role. In the sinking of the Bismark, a Fairey Swordfish jammed the rudder, and sighting reports helped the RN catch the Bismark. In the battleship dual off Guadalcanal, aircraft from Guadalcanal finished off the cripple the next day. At Surgio Strait, no aircraft took a direct role, but extensive and good quality sighting reports allowed Ollendorf to position his forces in the best possible ambush with catastrophic results for the Japanese.

Sexy as battleships were, the best use of the shipyards for the US would be to accelerate the Essex program, or at minimum, build more Yorktowns. If Japan had used the steel that went into the Yamato class on Shokakus, they could have had 4-6 new carriers by mid-42. The Shokaku's were probably the peak of development. They were tougher than any other class, and had a very large capacity. The Unryus (sp?) were essentially copies of the Hiryu, which was cheaper to build, but nowhere near as tough or as large.

Bill

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 18

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 2:13:08 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

The Bismarck wreck shows about three large-caliber hits on the main belt, all of which appear to be penetrations. Bismarck's main belt did not provide a whole lot of protected freeboard, and she was very low in the water by the time of the final duel. Considering the rough seas, a trjaectory to a main belt hit would be a rarity, especially by the time Rodney closed to tater-throwing range.

quote:

I only count three times battleships squared off against one another in WW II.

Renown vs the Twins. Bismarck (twice). North Cape. 2nd Guadalcanal. Casablanca. Dakar (twice?). Calabria. Surigao. Mers el Kebir. Probably more.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 19

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 2:21:24 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Coming into this thread a little late. If it was 1938 and I knew what was most needed in the upcoming war, I would cancel all BB projects not currently under construction and dedicate all capital ship yards to building fast fleet carriers.

If the US had 6 new CVs working up when Pearl Harbor happened, the Pacific War would have been much shorter.

The battleship still captures the imagination today. The big guns on a battleship are larger bore than just about any land based gun ever built. A few German guns were bigger, but they had very limited use. Leopold (aka Anzio Annie), one of the most famous was only 280mm, which is only around 11 inches.

Japan had a tremendous capital tied up in big battleships that saw very limited use. The Musashi, which almost broke the back of Japan's economy, only fired her main batteries once in anger. And that was at TBF Avengers. She never got within sight of an Allied ship.

The Yamato had a similarly useless life. She was only used for her intended purpose once in the Battle Off Samar where she and other battleships attacked a group of escort carriers. The largest American surface ship to oppose them was a destroyer. Hardly an even fight. Tactically it was a victory, of course, strategically it was a disaster. It achieved virtually nothing in the end.

I only count three times battleships squared off against one another in WW II. In all of them aircraft played a significant role. In the sinking of the Bismark, a Fairey Swordfish jammed the rudder, and sighting reports helped the RN catch the Bismark. In the battleship dual off Guadalcanal, aircraft from Guadalcanal finished off the cripple the next day. At Surgio Strait, no aircraft took a direct role, but extensive and good quality sighting reports allowed Ollendorf to position his forces in the best possible ambush with catastrophic results for the Japanese.

Sexy as battleships were, the best use of the shipyards for the US would be to accelerate the Essex program, or at minimum, build more Yorktowns. If Japan had used the steel that went into the Yamato class on Shokakus, they could have had 4-6 new carriers by mid-42. The Shokaku's were probably the peak of development. They were tougher than any other class, and had a very large capacity. The Unryus (sp?) were essentially copies of the Hiryu, which was cheaper to build, but nowhere near as tough or as large.

Bill

All well and good...., except that that was not the question posed! Of course, neither was all this nonsense about the Second World War's "most overated" Battleship, so perhaps you can be forgiven for not noticing the title of the thread.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 20

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 3:48:40 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Yeps..back to topic would one's idea of ideal Battleship for Pacific War.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 21

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 6:59:13 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

Bismarck was made for flawed Cruiser-War concept, but still had more weight allocated to armour protection than others (42% IIRC).
One of the strange things about the Bismarck project is that there was no clear mission intended for the design. The head of the KM Fleet Dept wrote c1938 that he could find no documentation specifying an intended role for Bismarck, Scharnhorst, or Hipper. I believe the Germans were simply building battleships for the sake of building battleships.

quote:

I do like powerplants of Bismarck for their power to weight ratio
I think the prime virtue of the Bismarck class was its mobility: good speed, satisfactory sea-keeping, and sufficient range.

quote:

I believe the AP rounds for the Bismarck's 15" guns weighed in at about 2,000 lbs. From the overall damage reports (especially from PoW) a significant number appear to have been duds.
Bismarck's shells weighed 800kg. Probably three of these hit PoW. One passed through the compass platform where the thickest plating was 1in. This would have been enough to trigger the shell's fuze, but the shell would have been long gone before it exploded, and in fact, it did not explode while aboard PoW. One shell hit a crane and exploded normally. The third shell landed short, tumbled wildly underwater, and entered PoW's hull nearly backwards. This was a dud, but we don't have enough information to blame a faulty shell; the extreme violence of the tumble might have interfered with any shell's fuze action. One other shell of unknown caliber passed through the superstructure without pursting on board, much like the compass platform hit. On the other hand, I think all of the hits by Prinz Eugen showed a flawed performance.

Ditto for the Hippers. They were designed to attack the French convoys bringing the North African forces to Marseilles.

< Message edited by herwin -- 3/5/2007 7:14:12 PM >

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 22

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 9:38:22 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

I would Basically build the montana's as they have good firepower great endurance heavily armoured as they were designed to have immunity against 16inch fire plus great AA potential. Speed is good to keep up with CV taskforces and they are my favourite non built ships. In fighting Steel i take out a yamato easily with a montana.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 23

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 10:15:33 PM

hawker

Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline

Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again

P.S. She was scuttled

_____________________________

Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 24

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:34:57 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again

P.S. She was scuttled

Was it you that had that huge long "Bismarck is the best BB in the world" thread?

She was never the best. Largest at the time of her launch, yes.., best, no.

(in reply to hawker)

Post #: 25

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/5/2007 11:48:17 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.

That's not true.

quote:

She was scuttled

That is true.
As to our topic, Bismarck might be a suitable model for a Pacific battleship, with a few reservations. We don't know how she'd do in Pacific seas. Her heavy AA was poor. And, regardless of which side she's on, she's facing a navy with a stated preference for extreme-range engagements, while her armor layout looks best at RJ War range.

(in reply to hawker)

Post #: 26

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 12:04:37 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Mine would have a 150 foot deck and hanger space for 75 fighters.

50 fighters and 50 SBD-5

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 27

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 12:11:24 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

The fact that someone opened the sea cocks only brought forward Bismark's demise, it would have been sunk very soon after.

A BB for the Pacific

Speed to keep up with the Fast Carriers.
Armour to withstand at least 16" shells, I dont intend to be near the 18.1". Enough protection, bulges, armour, compatments etc to withstand a long lance torpedo or two.
The best Radar on the block.
8 x 16" Guns, 4 x2 with 2 forward and 2 aft.
20 x 5" DP with proximity fuzes.
As many 40mm & 20mm AA, with proximity fuzes, as could be safely put aboard.

In my BB the main gunsa are the secondary armament, its really a BBAA.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 28

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 12:35:42 AM

hawker

Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Only shell that ACTUALLY penetrate Bismarck armor was Rodney 406mm.
When Bismarck was put at sea,she was the BEST battleship in world,and has the BEST artillery crew.
Yes,everyone can do "what if" scenarios.
Bismark vs Iowa,Iova vs Yamato.....................etc
Iowa,Yamato... NEVER fired their guns at other BB,Bismarck did.That is only fact.
At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.
Truly legendary ship,even on bottom of the sea she looks like that can sail again

P.S. She was scuttled

Was it you that had that huge long "Bismarck is the best BB in the world" thread?

She was never the best. Largest at the time of her launch, yes.., best, no.

And what ship in your opinion was better in that time?

Please,share that with us.

Tiornu,
I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor,but these can be checked

_____________________________

Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to String)

Post #: 29

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 12:37:17 AM

hawker

Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

The fact that someone opened the sea cocks only brought forward Bismark's demise, it would have been sunk very soon after.

Wrong,Brittish probably would seize her.
Imagine propaganda blow

_____________________________

Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to hawker)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Design your BB for Pacific War...