Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 1/11/2003 3:00:04 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		The trouble with this poll is that you have three distinct groups of ships represented here. Three paper ships which were never started, much less completed. Three ships which served as the ultimate realizations of the battleship concepts of their respective navies. And one lonely little oddball with no business trying to run with a pack like this. I'd suggest dividing the question into three:

1) Which do you think is the baddest battleship that ever was?

2) Which do you think is the baddest battleship that never was?

3) Which is your favorite out of the "Freaks and Geeks" crowd? (This group could include things like "large cruisers," battlecruisers, and pocket battleships, plus anything else anyone might think of.)

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 61
- 1/12/2003 12:17:58 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		For the purposes of this poll I arbitrarily grouped together ships that I think of as "uberships," probably the finest manifestation of the ship class called "battleship" that ever/never existed. There is no qualifier other than personal "favorite," assuming that all of them did in fact make it into the water. Perhaps I should have clarified that point.


LOL Feel free to start another poll! :D

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 62
- 1/12/2003 4:39:29 PM   
walk70

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline 		The cost of operating the IOWA's make them prohibitive. An Aegis class cruiser fitted out in the Land attack roll and protected by a couple of Arleigh Burke flight 2 DDG's can deliver a far more devestating blow. The BB's were great in there day but when the Aircraft Carrier came into being as the supreme warship of the sea the Battlewagon's glory days were over and the advent of the Long Range highly accurate Anti-land and Anti-ship cruise missile their death know was sounded.
Of a secondary note, even the marines I have talked to didn't like the idea of the Iowa's being brought back. Most felt the return of the Salem Class Cruiser would be a better use of dollars, especially since the marines were looking for something to provide some Naval Gunfire Support missions for the grunts on the ground. Most feel that the 16" gun although accurate was too devastating in an enemy close situation and would cause too many friendly casualties. The safety factor the 8" guns would provide would far out weigh the loss in affective range. There is a reason why the DD(x)'s are getting the 155mm guns. The Marines say the 5" gun does not exactly do the job.
Of not 12 RPM is not rapid fire. The Knox class frigate I was on was capable of firing 20 RPM. It had 2 10 round loader drums where as the MK-45 gun on the Spruances only had one Loader Drum which with a good magazine crew could get out 15 RPM. If you want to talk rapid fire. The twin water cooled 130mm guns on the Slava CG's according to Janes could fire between 40 and 50 RPM. These guns were water cooled. When the Marshall Ustinov came to Mayport, I took a tour and got a look at these guns and I think Jane's is pretty accurate on that part of there capabililty. Of the technology I saw on that ship that was the only piece of hardware that Impressed me. The SS-N-12 Launchers which I had gone to see weren't exactly technological marvels.
When the Iowa's were recommissioned during Ronald Reagan's watch it was in direct response to the USSR's Kirov class battlecruisers. The Iowa's were cheaper to recommission which as we have all learned with time was one of the steps Ronald Reagan used to get the USSR to spend itself out of existance. A good strategy, but it came pretty close to bankrupting the United States too.
The Soviets did have one good idea though. The best and cheapest counter to a Navy heavy reliant on the Super Carrier is the nuclear attack submarine. The attack missile submarine such as the Kursk was is the greatest fear of a CVBG commander, so if I had to vote on the best non-carrier naval vessel afloat it would be either the US improved Los Angeles class, ( I don't think the seawolf or its replacement is worth the money), or the Russian Oscar II class SSGN, I might even give the Russian Charlie II a vote in a choke point scenario. Names are NATO designations from Jane's Fighting Ships. Submariners of which my son is one, still say there are only two kinds of ships. Submarines and Targets!

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 63
- 1/13/2003 7:29:13 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knavey
[B]When I was in, she was considered the fastest carrier afloat. She did a round the world cruise/deployment prior to her massive overhaul, and the TR was the ship that received all of her packages that go boom prior to her entering the yards. Going to try to post a picture of that underway.

Keep in mind, that the argument about speed is pretty much moot until you take the "restrictions" off of the ships. Its sort of like having governors on your car engines...you don't really know how fast you can go, only brag about what you may (or may not be) capable of. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, but if I tool around at 130mph in my car, the autoshop is going to really love me. :-)

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 64
- 1/13/2003 10:03:06 AM   
walk70

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline 		Knavey, your CV listing for the Gulf War may have been correct except maybe the MIDWAY, I think she was already at the razor blade factory by this time. I think it was the Kitty Hawk. I also thing the America was laid up. I think that was the Big John. It was her last deployment before she was supposed to have gone reserve.
I was stationed at ATG in Mayport at the time and believe that she was deployed for that engagement.

PS She still isn't reserve. She is still at Mayport and current getting ready for a major overhaul to which she is only 15 years behind. The Navy being the Navy they'll probably complete her yard period then scrap her:D

I thought the Big E was in the Gulf War? If I remember correctly there was talk of her shifting home from Norfolk to Mayport after she returned, since most of the ships of her BG were assigned to Mayport, this was however changed by politics.:D

_____________________________

Ask General Eisenhower if he wants me to give it back. -General George S. Patton when being told of a message that he was not to take Mesina, Sicily.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 65
- 1/13/2003 10:24:14 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		On 2 August 1990, Iraq invaded its neighbor Kuwait, and U.S. forces moved into Saudi Arabia as part of Operation Desert Shield to protect that country against invasion by Iraq. On 1 November 1990, Midway was again on station in the North Arabian Sea, relieving USS Independence (CV 62). On 15 November, she participated in Operation Imminent Thunder, an eight-day combined amphibious landing exercise in northeastern Saudi Arabia which involved about 1,000 U.S. Marines, 16 warships, and more than 1,100 aircraft. Meanwhile, the United Nations set an ultimatum deadline of 15 January 1991 for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.


President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation on 16 January 1991 at 9 p.m. EST and announced that the libration of Kuwait from Iraq, Operation Desert Storm, had begun. The Navy launched 228 sorties from Midway and USS Ranger (CV 61) in the Persian Gulf, from USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) enroute to the Gulf, and from USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), USS Saratoga (CV 60), and USS America (CV 66) in the Red Sea. In addition, the Navy launched more than 100 Tomahawk missiles from nine ships in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf. At 9 p.m. EST on 27 February, President Bush declared Kuwait had been liberated and Operation Desert Storm would end at midnight. Midway departed the Persian Gulf 11 March 1991 and returned to Yokosuka.


In August 1991, Midway departed Yokosuka and returned to Pearl Harbor. Here, she turned over with USS Independence (CV 62) which was replacing Midway as the forward-deployed carrier in Yokosuka. Midway then sailed to San Diego where she was decommissioned at North Island Naval Air Station on 11 April 1992. She was stricken from the Navy List on 17 March 1997 and remains at the Navy Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton, Wash., on hold for use as a museum and memorial.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html

This is what I found on the Midway. I am 99% sure that Enterprise was in the yards for her reactor changeout during the Gulf War. She had done a transfer from West Coast to East Coast for the overhaul, and one of my buddies reported to her after she arrived in Norfolk. He did one 2 week deployment, then spent the next few years in the yards. He basically did 14 days at sea during a 6 year enlistment. Incredible but true...

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 66
- 3/4/2003 2:29:40 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Doing doughnuts in the Persian Gulf...

[IMG]http://www.strategypage.com/humor/images/Fastcv.jpg[/IMG]


Just thot y'all would enjoy the pic!
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 67
- 3/4/2003 5:06:50 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		I can just see the captain when the coast guard "pulls him over."

"Sorry, I didn't see the posted speed limit!"

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 68
hull speed - 3/4/2003 8:35:51 AM   
SWODOG

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 5/9/2002
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Status: offline 		I'm not a naval engineer, but I am a certain I remember from my days onboard a USN FF that ship speeds ultimately are a function of hull speed that is part of the design. No matter how much power you can put in through the shafts, a ship will only go as fast as that hull design permits. So nuke or steam power really is not the deciding factor in ships speed. When I was qualifying as TAO the speeds we learned from our pubs were typically greater than advertised in Janes but not as awesome as some of the numbers stated here. I also remember that when the BB's were brought back into service they were primarily intended to counter Soviet Navy SAG's centered around Kirov or Slava class CGN's and were escorted like a CV/CVN by CG's, DD's and FF's. The arrival of the VLS launcher onboard the Tico's and later refitted on some of the Spruances gave the Navy an anti-ship and land attack option that made the BB's no longer practical. I would also argue that the range limitations of the 5/54" gun makes it far inferior to any BB in a Naval Gunfire Support role. Despite the rate of fire argument, I've shot lots of NGFS and those five inchers don't have that much bang. The new 62 caliber gun with the extended range guided projectile is now at sea on the Flight2A DDG-51's and will be the first real NGFS weapon that Naval Ships will have carried in a long time. Besides on the beach, Marine ampihbious assaults like to land inland in their helos/Ospreys and they need naval guns with some reach to support them. The new ERGM have around a sixty mile range! Finally, ask the folks in Beirut who scared them more... that ole Knox class with his mighty five incher or New Jersey with those 9 sixteen inch naval rifles and I think they'd say the battleship.

I voted Iowa because they are the most beautiful warships that have ever sailed IMHO... good thread BTW. Tom

_____________________________

Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 69
- 3/4/2003 10:33:06 AM   
rlc27

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks, I had thought it was deceased, but glad to see that it is making a comeback.

:)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)
Post #: 70
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

3.797