Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 12:53:42 AM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: hawker


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


Of the newer ones? KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.

IMHO it could even be argued that the post ww1 16" designes were superior or atleast comparable to the Bismarck. A lucky shot on an oversized battlecruiser does not make a good battleship.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 31
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:04:45 AM   
hawker


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker


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


Of the newer ones? KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.

IMHO it could even be argued that the post ww1 16" designes were superior or atleast comparable to the Bismarck. A lucky shot on an oversized battlecruiser does not make a good battleship.


KGVs!,and you cant find better.
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?



_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to String)
Post #: 32
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:10:39 AM   
wdolson

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.


I did wander off on a tangent, but I did notice the title of the thread. IMO, the best battleship fr the Pacific War would have been no battleship. Build more carriers with the yard space.

I apologize for writing an essay about it.

Bill

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 33
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:13:00 AM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: hawker


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker


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


Of the newer ones? KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.

IMHO it could even be argued that the post ww1 16" designes were superior or atleast comparable to the Bismarck. A lucky shot on an oversized battlecruiser does not make a good battleship.


KGVs!,and you cant find better.
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?




At the time Bismarck was launched, yes, just a year later the North CAROLINA totally outclasses her.

Can you tell me why the KGV is so inferior to the Bismarck?

edit: it's north carolina not north dakota.. silly me

< Message edited by String -- 3/6/2007 1:33:28 AM >

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 34
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:14:01 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker
KGVs!,and you cant find better.
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?



Washington or North Carolina would eat that oversized, cheatin', Nazi, barrel o' bolts for lunch. Is that the answer you were looking for?

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 35
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:17:33 AM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker
KGVs!,and you cant find better.
Sorry,but that is laughable.
Thats for newer ones,can you find older ones?



Washington or North Carolina would eat that oversized, cheatin', Nazi, barrel o' bolts for lunch. Is that the answer you were looking for?



All well and good but they were commissioned a bit later than the Bismarck, so sadly they don't count

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 36
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:19:42 AM   
Tiornu

 

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

I think James Cameron expedition proves that only Rodney 406mm guns penetrate Bismarck armor
No, the Cameron made no determinations on the caliber of the belt penetrations. At least one 14in salvo is credited with causing the damage to the armor-protected hydraulics that caused Anton's guns to depress. There's no reason to think that Bismarck's armor could withstand hits from 14in shells at short range.

quote:

Brittish probably would seize her.
The British, if they had somehow made it aboard, would have been even less able to keep the ship afloat than the Germans. In terms of propaganda, the best that could be hoped would be for photos taken aboard the sinking ship. There was no way to save Bismarck, and I doubt there was any hope of putting a boarding party on to her. Moot point, right? The British never gave a thought to boarding. They sent in Dorsetshire to finish her with torpedoes.

quote:

KGV. Comparable firepower, better armor, better firecontrol (radar), betterl AAA suite. Only inferior in underwater protection and general seakeeping.

KGV's radar was not better at the time of this fight. Same with the AAA, right? But yes, she had better armor. Regarding the current topic, KGV is inadequate as a Pacific battleship due to what I consider her biggest shortcoming--her range.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 37
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:27:56 AM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
Yes,they will totaly outclassed her,bla,bla,bla.....

I must say that i will not again go in debate about this. I say all about this topic one year ago.
Just too tired of repeating facts.

Fair winds

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 38
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 1:54:20 AM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: hawker

Yes,they will totaly outclassed her,bla,bla,bla.....

I must say that i will not again go in debate about this. I say all about this topic one year ago.
Just too tired of repeating facts.

Fair winds


I do recall an epic thread about it yes..

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 39
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 2:35:59 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Washington or North Carolina would eat that oversized, cheatin', Nazi, barrel o' bolts for lunch. Is that the answer you were looking for?



All well and good but they were commissioned a bit later than the Bismarck, so sadly they don't count




Tirpitz, North Carolina, and Washington were all commissioned within 3 months of each other, so the classes were of comtemporary design and construction. And the US didn't need to "cheat" by 7,000 tons to produce an excellent ship.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 40
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 2:53:30 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
What would I want for a Pacific theatre WW2 battleship? An Iowa, no questions asked. Fast enough to escort the fleet carriers, capable of standing up to any battleship afloat, possesses enough range to remain on station and crammed chock full of AAA. Noone else got it right, IMO.

The Montanas sacrificed speed for the extra guns, and so would not have been as worthy escorts for the fleet carriers.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 41
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 3:50:18 AM   
bigjoe96912

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
you goofs how could you not want the Montana Class!!!!!!!!!!!! Not only is she a total brute but a beauty as well

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 42
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 4:49:37 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjoe96912

you goofs how could you not want the Montana Class!!!!!!!!!!!! Not only is she a total brute but a beauty as well



How about the minor drawback that none of them would have been completed in time to actually participate in the Pacific War?

(in reply to bigjoe96912)
Post #: 43
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 5:24:32 AM   
seydlitz_slith


Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline
Given the treaty restrictions, a South Dakota class is about as good as you will get. While they were an evolution of the North Carolina type design, they did not suffer the severe vibration problem that plaqued both North Carolina and Washington. I have always considered the SoDaks as cramped ships, which they were. If you didn't have treaty restrictions, and did not have to worry about the ship being ready in 1942, then the Iowas were the better ships.

Regarding the North Carolinas (Which I personally think were excellent ships):
This vibration problem was serious, and as late as April 1944, the navy was still conducting vibration trials and swapping propellor configurations.
The vibration was pronounced above 20 knots, and for a time, they were speed restricted to no more than 23 knots. Even after prop swaps, the vibration was still bad enough that the after fire control tower had to be externally braced and the after range finder still vibrated excessively.

Think about that....if the range finder is vibrating, how accurate is it going to be in determining precise ranges.

Other than that, the NCs were built to withstand 14" shellfire, where the SoDak and Iowas were built to resist 16". Torpedo protection was also not as good as in the later classes, although it compared quite well to the protection schemes used in other contemporary battleships. In fact, part of the problem is that torpedo warhead size/explosive force increased quite a bit from the time the treaty ships were designed until war.

The NoCars and SoDaks had 16"/45 cal guns...the Iowas had an improved 16"/50 cal gun, providing greater range and muzzle velocity (hence more accurate over a given range).

All three classes had excellent steaming range needed for a Pacific war.

Funny thing is, if you had asked "what battleship would you have wanted to be on during the war" I would have said "Washington". She had the most interesting war record. While checking my facts for this post, I found a few interesting but not widely known facts:
1. On 1 May 1942 she was steaming in formation behind King George V in dense fog at 18 knots when the KGV collided with the destroyer Punjabi and cut her in two. The Washington steamed through the wreckage of the destroyer as the depth charges were detonating, causing shock and concussion damage. However, hullwise, only one diesel tank sprang a leak. The shock caused three large circuit breakers to trip, cutting 25% of the power in the forward switchboard and cutting emergency power in the forward part of the ship. Also the search radar and three fire control radars were disabled from the shock.
Washingtion was able to continue on station. KGV was damaged enough that she had to return to port under DD escort for repairs.

2.On 1 February 1944 she was zigzagging at night in formation andcollided with the BB Indiana. She hit the Indy broadside, with her bow contacting the ship on the starboard side at number 3 16" turret. Washington's bow was seriously damaged and she had to steam to Majuro at 6 knots for repairs. After reaching Majuro,she was worked on for a little over a week, then sent to Pearl for a temporary bow, and then from there on to Puget Sound in the states for complete repairs. The damage to Indiana was also extensive, and according to one of my source books, was the most extensive damage to a US battleship aside from those damaged in the Pearl Harbor attack. I have not seen any pictures of either ship showing the damage, but I would certianly be interested in seeing some if anybody could ferret them out.


Finally, I went to Mobile to see the Alabama last month while I was on my way to Daytona for Speed weeks. I took lots of pics, and I will try to post some of the interesting ones in a separate thread for your viewing pleasure.

(in reply to bigjoe96912)
Post #: 44
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 7:33:04 AM   
Murphie

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline
OK - give me a Kongo class.

Gimme 4 14" turrets with 2-gun salvos - two in front and two in back

Gimme some 6" secondary guns 7 to the left, 7 to the right.

And I want Long Lance Torpedoes! I wanna broadside of 25 fish!

And AAA - I want lotsa that.

And 2 two-seater spotter planes as FOs.

And I wanna be able to make smoke if I hafto run - lotsa smoke.

Lemme do 30 knots so she can cut thru the seas with authority - I wann feel the wind blowing thru my hair...

Can I ask for special weapons for my DD escorts? I want them 2 make smoke too but also be able to toss special canisters from their depth charge launchers that float on the water and make even more smoke... I wanna make smoke on the water and toss fire in the sky... I like smoke when there's no radar. And spotter planes 4 a bird's eye view.



_____________________________

Respectfully,

M. E. Grinn

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)
Post #: 45
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 7:35:28 AM   
KDonovan


Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
here's my design, basically an elongated Iowa, with upgunned secondary. I always thought the Iowa's lacked sufficient firepower in the secondary batteries when compared to other ships of her time. Therefore i would give her 6 x 6in guns of the type used on the Brooklyn class CL's.

9 x 16in guns
6 x 6in guns
24 x 5in guns
72 x 40mm
(no 20mm's)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to seydlitz_slith)
Post #: 46
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 7:44:25 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
Add fighters and a wave motion cannon to the Yamato (ala Star Blazers) and I would be a happy JFB.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to KDonovan)
Post #: 47
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 8:36:28 AM   
Tiornu

 

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

And I want Long Lance Torpedoes! I wanna broadside of 25 fish!
Battleships and torpedoes don't mix.

quote:

6 x 6in guns
Six guns is sub-optimal for FC purposes. What about a DP 6in secondary battery?

(in reply to Murphie)
Post #: 48
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 10:02:49 AM   
String


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

*snip*
1. On 1 May 1942 she was steaming in formation behind King George V in dense fog at 18 knots when the KGV collided with the destroyer Punjabi and cut her in two. The Washington steamed through the wreckage of the destroyer as the depth charges were detonating, causing shock and concussion damage. However, hullwise, only one diesel tank sprang a leak. The shock caused three large circuit breakers to trip, cutting 25% of the power in the forward switchboard and cutting emergency power in the forward part of the ship. Also the search radar and three fire control radars were disabled from the shock.
Washingtion was able to continue on station. KGV was damaged enough that she had to return to port under DD escort for repairs.

*snip*


I doubt the Washington would have been in shape to continue on station if she had hit the DD instead of KGV. Both battleships had unarmored bows. Slice your bow open against another ship and its hard or even dangerous to keep up speed

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)
Post #: 49
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 10:55:28 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I think so far that "modified" SoDaks or NoCars might have been what the Pacific needed in BB class. And latter seems to be more easy to modify than former..SoDaks being "cramped".

There is no use to say "I scrap all my BBs in favour of CVs"..yes, by hindsight that might be beneficial a bit...but how could you convince anyone in 1938-41 to do that ?

Basicly I think that good BB design had good cruise speed, loooong range, accurate fire control (Germans had very good rangefinders, for example..even tho they were harder to use under stress), radar (well..in 1941 there should be some sets in production that are decent..), 15" to 16" main armament and ability to severely upgrade AAA.

Why I think that Bismarck would be good for Pacific is that she had larger area of ship under heavy armour than other ships of the period. That is beneficial against dive bombers. And her powerplant had very good power to weight ratio. Just that reliability was not yet the forte of that powerplant. She was very steady gunnery platform too, being wider than most contemporaries. And AFAIK, her torpedo protection was quite good too (despite the lucky hit that disabled her).



(in reply to String)
Post #: 50
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 11:26:36 AM   
Tiornu

 

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

Both battleships had unarmored bows
KGV had some of the thickest bow armor ever fitted to a dreadnought.

quote:

That is beneficial against dive bombers.
Personally, I don't see resistance to dive bombers as a significant criterion. Unless operating apart from carriers, battleships were hardly ever dive-bombed. Operating against American planes, Bismarck is arguably among the more poorly protected modern ships due to the low position of her armor deck.

quote:

She was very steady gunnery platform too, being wider than most contemporaries.
Bismarck was a steady gun platform compared to Scharnhorst, but among more skilluflly designed ships, she's merely average. Her exaggerated stability acted against her steadiness.

quote:

And AFAIK, her torpedo protection was quite good too (despite the lucky hit that disabled her).
Bismarck's TDS was a primitive design similar to that in German WWI ships. It had a greater depth than KGV's certainly, but the details do not inspire confidence.

I do not subscribe to the idea that battleships were passe in WWII. The carrier task force that has battleships can maneuver wherever it wants against the carrier task force without battleships.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 51
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 11:50:12 AM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

Both battleships had unarmored bows
KGV had some of the thickest bow armor ever fitted to a dreadnought.

my mistake . But that shows imho that the washington would have suffered even more?

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 52
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 12:47:09 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
I would expect so. I'm trying to think of an illustrative example, and this is the best I can do:
http://navysite.de/bb/bb64.htm

(in reply to String)
Post #: 53
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 5:32:11 PM   
Murphie

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

And I want Long Lance Torpedoes! I wanna broadside of 25 fish!
Battleships and torpedoes don't mix.

quote:

6 x 6in guns
Six guns is sub-optimal for FC purposes. What about a DP 6in secondary battery?


Hey! This is MY BB design. If I want torps on her then that's what I want. You don't like it - fine - go make your own.

_____________________________

Respectfully,

M. E. Grinn

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 54
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 5:57:23 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murphie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

And I want Long Lance Torpedoes! I wanna broadside of 25 fish!
Battleships and torpedoes don't mix.

quote:

6 x 6in guns
Six guns is sub-optimal for FC purposes. What about a DP 6in secondary battery?


Hey! This is MY BB design. If I want torps on her then that's what I want. You don't like it - fine - go make your own.



Well..., you don't state that you insist on your ship floating upright, so by all means do it your way....

(in reply to Murphie)
Post #: 55
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 6:25:17 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
SOME people are SO picky; next you'll insist on aircraft that can fly and submarines that can submerge and return to the surface.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 3/6/2007 6:41:25 PM >


_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 56
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 6:47:18 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

I have not seen any pictures of either ship showing the damage, but I would certianly be interested in seeing some if anybody could ferret them out.


As per your request:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/marshals/wash-ind.htm

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 57
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/6/2007 11:03:23 PM   
histgamer

 

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline
Anyone have springsharp? You can use that program to actually design your own ships. It’s a modified spring style which was an earlier program.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 58
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/7/2007 12:54:37 AM   
wdolson

 

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

ORIGINAL: mlees

As per your request:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/marshals/wash-ind.htm


Washington also had the best honed crew of all BBs in the Pacific. I think it was Admiral Lee who, when he was aboard the Washington, felt that rate of fire on the big guns was the key to winning a surface fight and he drilled his gun crews until they could fire the guns at a rate something like 50% faster than spec. This was the crew that went into combat on November 1, 1942. The Washington won that fight almost singlehandedly. The North Dakota was out of action for most of the battle and all the destroyers were badly damaged.

In the game, the Washington should arrive with a highly trained crew.

Bill

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 59
RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/7/2007 2:28:59 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

At ranges of 15-20000m Bismarck can blew of the water ANY ship of her time,and actually did that.


What she did? She blowed old tincan and heavy damaged ship which technically speaking still was under construction....


_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859