RE: B-17 Endurance

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: B-17 Endurance

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: B-17 Endurance

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/25/2004 6:08:10 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Oleg, In the Game Aircraft that are listed as Torpedo capable, those show to have the Torpedo as the main aramement use a bomb if not doing torpedo atacks, but since we cant in the editor see what the bomb is it does raise an interesting question, be nice if we could see this setting and adjust it. Torpedos were not used for ASW typicaly Depth Charges would be carried on these types of sorties by both sides or bombs.

Peggy/Francis, ya They should be torp capable, both the Army and Navy used the Peggy in torpedo runs. The Peggy did not have a Huge bomb capacity, it had realy the same load as prety much all the preceding Japanese Bombers around 1,800 pounds, bomb loads would vary depending on type carried and the Peggy could manage:

1 x 500Kg bomb, 8 x 100 Kg bombs or 3 x 250 KG bombs carried internaly.

The Peggy was realy a fine machine, well defended and fast for her type, the only real drawback to her designe when compared to types from other countrys was the comparatively smalish bombload.

The Peggy did only serve in the last 9 months of the war. It became available in the summer of 44. The 12th of October 44 saw the combat debue of the Ki-67*, though she had been in service for some time before this, they had yet to be deployed to combat. The Ki-67 was issued to Army and Navy Bomber Units, several Army Bomber Regements had actualy been asigned to the Comand of the Navy and were deploed to a special TF this unit was tasked with the defense of the Philipines area and station in Formosa, the overall comand was speicaly trained in Night and Bad wheater tactics and was truly all wheater capable.

*T-Force Bombers (Typhoon) Launcehd Night Atacks (torpedo) .... (T-Force was the Army/Navy composet force).

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 211

RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/26/2004 4:37:38 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Hmmm... I think I had a cranial-rectal inversion.

The Akitsushima only CARRIES one aircraft but it can still support 10 or so, right? I would love to get confirmation on this from Matrix.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 212

RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/26/2004 5:34:36 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

For IJN...can support capacity plus 10, minus the number of a/c actually on board (in the manual you know

)

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 213

RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/26/2004 3:20:55 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Yes, i know, it was just that '1' staring at me that had me thinking the ship was useless; i mean where am i going to find a unit with 1 Mavis??

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 214

RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/26/2004 3:32:04 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Make it in the editor

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 215

RE: B-17 Endurance - 8/26/2004 4:18:52 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

My worry with that is with 1 plane it is easy to lose it and then have zero aircraft in a unit.
UV showed us that once a unit hits zero it will quite often never get a replacement.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 216

Missing Aussie planes and an early arrival. - 8/27/2004 8:32:48 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

The Australians had over 1000 Avro Ansons used for Maritime patrol,ASW and recon,(missing from WITP),they had over 300 Vultee Vengeance dive bombers in New Ginea 1942-1944,(vastly under represented or non-existent),and they never had the Short Sunderland in Australia till 1944..Please see the following info..
ttp://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/index_mil.html

< Message edited by m10bob -- 8/27/2004 1:33:39 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 217

Dutch T.IVa - Aircraft Type? - 8/28/2004 12:12:46 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Dutch T.IVa - Aircraft Type

How come this aircraft is listed as a Torpedo bomber and not a Float Plane?

reff:
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fjpspanzersfrm25.showPrevMessage?topicID=467.topic

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 218

Merchant Ship Eratta - Scenario 15 - 8/28/2004 2:07:35 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Esso Rochester, listed as a Small AK (US) was a Tanker - the name was a dead giveaway.

Empire Celtic is listed as an LST. I can find no reference for this ship during World War II. However, British LST 3507 was renamed Empire Celtic when converted to merchant service in 1946.

Landing Ship Infantry had a different meaning to the U.S. and the British. A U.S. LSI was a small beaching ship for landing infantry directly on the shore. A British LSI was a small transport that carried assault landing craft to land it's troops - the equivalent of a U.S. APA. The following British Ships are mis-classed as American LSI:
Empire Mace
Empire Halberd
Empire Lance

Also, mis-classed as American LST:
Empire Battleaxe

These four ships (and eight others) were Type C1-S-AY1 converted merchant ships of 11600 tons (full load) made available under Lend Lease. They carried 1 LCM, 6 LCA, 2 LCP(S) landing craft.

And, special for Ron Saueracker -
The Japanese converted at least 5 large whaling ships into "super Tankers":
Nisshin Maru (actually renamed Nissin Maru in 1938)
Nisshin Maru #2 (renamed Nissin Maru #2 in 1938)
Kyokuyo Maru
Tonan Maru #2
Tonan Maru #3

Displacement was 16-17 Thousand tons (as Whaling ships) - at least 50% more than the average "large" tanker. I can find no reference for their oil capacity. All five are in Scenario 15 as Large Tankers.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 219

British/Indian/Empire etc. OOBs - 8/28/2004 3:07:49 AM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

1) I'm not sure why Indian army field artillery regiments (independent or in brigade groups or divisions) seem to be listed with 18 guns. When organised as 2 batteries they would logically have 16 guns, with 3 batetries 24. Unless of course the Indian units in the Pacific differed greatly from those in the Medditeranean (Joslen clearly states Indian unit's with 24 x 25 pdr.).

2) Again unless there was a significant difference between Europe and the Pacific, British style (British, Indian, ANZAC etc.) field artillery regiments should have only one type of guns (18pdr., 18/25pdr. (not sure how those were really called, probably not used in Asia anyhow) and 25pdr.). The 4.5" was not used in field regiments.

3) Medium artillery regiments used a mix of 5.5" and 4.5" guns, probably 4 x 5.5" and 12 x 4.5" (4 x 4 gun batteries).

4) I noticed British style units tend to upgrade to 76mm AT, some units might have used these (I could imagine Australian militia units), but usually the upgrade should be 2pdr., 6pdr. (possibly two variants to reflect the serious upgrades in 1944) and 17pdr. The 6pdr. (unlike the US 57mm AT) is actually a better gun then the US 76mm AT. The 17pdr. (not sure it was used in Asia, it would have been quite akward due to it's size) would obviously have been much better yet.

5) As some others have mentionned (I have not managed to read all the OOB posts yet), the Indian army generally had one British battalion attached (integral part) to their brigades. So an Indian Army brigade (this includes Burmese and Malayan units) usually had two "native" battalions and one British. In game this should be reflected as British squads. This was not just the case for Infantry brigades, but also armour and tank (though there it would be hard to reflect the different nationality). British artillery regiments also served with the Indian army (probably reflected by the independent regiments in game, though I feel that's a less then ideal way to represent it).

6) ANZAC (or Canadian) warships should not be penalized when compared to RN ships. That means any ANZAC cruisers or destroyers that served against Germany or Italy earlier in the war should have similar experience to RN ships (Achiles comes to mind, she should have slightly better crew ratings then Exeter).

7) ANZAC and Dutch ships newly arriving in the theater of operations should probably arrive at Karachi and not in their home countries. This obviously does not include newly built (in Oceania) units.

8) Same applies to ANZAC LCU's arriving from outside the Theater of Operations.

9) HMS Victorious should start at San Fransisco like US ships (iirc she was repaired in the US and then served with the US fleet).

10) All Empire air, land and naval units should use the same syntax rules (most noticeable differences are with air units).

These are just a few preliminary notes. I'm much more used to the ETO or the Middle East and North Africa. I can back up some of the above notes via source material, particularly Joslen's (the official British and Empire (not including dominions and India) order of battle. I think the AT, AA, armour and tank TOE's for Empire units are also incorrect in WitP (again I can get the exact values from Joslen's, while ETO units tended to have more material, the theoretical maximal equipment would seem like the logical benchmark to use in a strategic game). I can also look up US material (but then I do assume others can do the same).

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Not sure WiE's OOB is worked on currently. If it is and you want a hand email me, I can work on British (Joslen's, Victory in the West etc.) and German (Verbande und Truppen...) land forces with ease. I could also take a look at the US (Stanton and one or two others) army OOB. French I only have incomplete data etc. (Belgian, Dutch, Commonwealth and allied under British or French command etc., oh and of course Italian).

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 220

RE: Dutch T.IVa - Aircraft Type? - 8/28/2004 3:24:41 AM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Dutch T.IVa - Aircraft Type

How come this aircraft is listed as a Torpedo bomber and not a Float Plane?

reff:
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fjpspanzersfrm25.showPrevMessage?topicID=467.topic

My guess would be that a float plane cannot conduct a strike mission. Indicating it as a torp bomber will let it do Naval Attack.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 221

RE: OOB Comments - 8/28/2004 3:45:28 AM

fbastos

Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline

Penguin should have a classification of PG rather than MSW.

Her history at DANFS during 20s and 30s looks pretty much more like one of the China gunboats rather than a minesweeper.

"
Recommissioned 13 October 1923, she was fitted out for temporary service as a gunboat and assigned to the Asiatic Fleet. Sailing west she took up duties as a Yangtze Patrol vessel, operating out of Shanghai. She remained on China station until the end of the decade, then sailed to Cavite, whence she steamed to Guam, where she was homeported for the last years of her naval career.

During the thirties, she performed various services for the administrators of Guam, including patrol and rescue missions in areas traversed by the newly established transpacific air routes. However, with increased political tension in the Far East, and increased possibilities for war, her patrol duties were stepped up and took on a more defensive posture.

"

Regards,
F.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 222

RE: British/Indian/Empire etc. OOBs - 8/28/2004 4:25:34 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

Caranorn,

Although Joslen is an excellent starting point, or primer, it does not include the organization of Commonwealth formations, or the nebulous organizational issues with the units in the Far East. To expand the knowledge of British and Commonwealth formations, especially in the Pacific Theater, I would suggest the following books:

George Forty, "British Army Handbook - 1939-1945."

Chris Ellis and Peter Chamberlain, "Handbook on the British Army 1943."

TM 30-410, "Handbook on the British Army...."

Mark Bevis, "British and Commonwealth Armies 1939-1943."
"British and Commonwealth Armies 1944-1945."

Malcolm Bellis, "Regiments of the British Army 1939-1945 (Armour and Infantry)"
"Regiments of the British Army 1939-1945 (Artillery)"
"Divisions of the British Army 1939-1945"
"British Tanks and Formations 1939-1945"

Chris Kempton, "Loyalty & Honour�� - The Indian Army: September 1939 - August 1947." 3 Volumes - Divisions; Brigades; Higher Formations, Deployment, Forces & Columns

David Hughes, "The British Armies of the Second World War: An Organizational History."
10 Volumes currently published - covers all Commonwealth formations with TOEs and OoBs.

Obviously, there are numerous other titles, but this would be a good starting point. After you've digested all of this, then there are the Official Histories - the US "Green Book" series, and the Australian and New Zealand Official Histories are particularly good. I'm currently trying to find my set of "The War Against Japan," the British Official History - they're buried in storage somewhere. The official histories will give you an overview of the significant actions, and in alot of cases, some TOE and OoB information. The Indian Official History is 24 volumes - more than I care to delve into at this time - LOL

Hope this helps,

Brad

< Message edited by Brad Hunter -- 8/28/2004 2:26:21 PM >

(in reply to Caranorn)

Post #: 223

RE: Dutch T.IVa - Aircraft Type? - 8/28/2004 11:06:42 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Dutch T.IVa - Aircraft Type

How come this aircraft is listed as a Torpedo bomber and not a Float Plane?

My guess would be that a float plane cannot conduct a strike mission. Indicating it as a torp bomber will let it do Naval Attack.

Herrbear

There is no such thing as a strike mission and float planes can conduct naval attacks (at lease when under player control).

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 224

AV/CVE Langley - 9/2/2004 6:53:23 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

Wouldn't it be better to have Langley as a CVE (without aircraft but with 30-40 capacity) at the start of the game (december 1941)? She still had more then half her flight deck and was used to transport aircraft (which AV cannot do in WitP). She had a capacity of at least 30 planes, probably more, IIRC she had at least 24 fighters on board when she was finally sunk.

Marc aka Caran...

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 225

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/2/2004 7:14:05 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

Wouldn't it be better to have Langley as a CVE (without aircraft but with 30-40 capacity) at the start of the game (december 1941)? She still had more then half her flight deck and was used to transport aircraft (which AV cannot do in WitP). She had a capacity of at least 30 planes, probably more, IIRC she had at least 24 fighters on board when she was finally sunk.

Marc aka Caran...

90% of the time she is the main target and is sunk no matter what you do to try and salvage her. Must be a game target priority for historical reasons (like the British BB/BC & the Lex)

(in reply to Caranorn)

Post #: 226

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 1:42:57 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Um, what is up with the turret armour on the American NCLs? The 312 rating is just a tad high. They had 3" roofs & sides, 5" faces and 4" barbettes. That is about a 175 rating if i am reading your system correctly.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 227

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 5:00:07 AM

The Dude

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline

whats an NCL

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 228

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 5:09:07 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Dude

whats an NCL

New Light Cruisers designed for the Federation. The old sub light cruisers rebuilt for warp operations were getting long in the tooth.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to The Dude)

Post #: 229

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 5:26:07 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Yes! Actually, i meant the St Louis, Brooklyn, Cleveland classes.

I think Matrix should make Federation & Empire into a computer game. That was one game made to be on the computer.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 230

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 5:31:38 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Dude

whats an NCL

New Light Cruisers designed for the Federation. The old sub light cruisers rebuilt for warp operations were getting long in the tooth.

Wooo! GO Starfleet Battles and Starfleet Command!

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 231

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 6:16:21 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Totally love SFB. Kzinti's were my babies as no one else would play them. Almost useless but I love a challenge.

Federation Space would make a great little game on the PC.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 232

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 6:18:25 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Yes! Actually, i meant the St Louis, Brooklyn, Cleveland classes.

I think Matrix should make Federation & Empire into a computer game. That was one game made to be on the computer.

Mike

I never noticed the armour gaff. Just assumed they were correct as they made it through the UV forums. Same with New Mexico 14"/45s. Never assume!!!

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 233

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/3/2004 3:36:37 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

Wouldn't it be better to have Langley as a CVE (without aircraft but with 30-40 capacity) at the start of the game (december 1941)? She still had more then half her flight deck and was used to transport aircraft (which AV cannot do in WitP). She had a capacity of at least 30 planes, probably more, IIRC she had at least 24 fighters on board when she was finally sunk.

Marc aka Caran...

90% of the time she is the main target and is sunk no matter what you do to try and salvage her. Must be a game target priority for historical reasons (like the British BB/BC & the Lex)

Well she can survive (I get her out to Australia almost every game, you just have to know when to make the run and how).

But the main question is, should she be an AV or a CVE? Her official rating in 1941 was AV, but her ability was much more then that, and the allies could use that transport capacity early on?

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Err. doesn't this topic say something along the lines of no long drawn out discussions? I refer to the of topic starships. I won't talk of the Brooklyn's, while I love those ships I don't know enough of them (I feel they did not get to play the role in history they deserved, huge potential aparently wasted).

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 234

RE: AV/CVE Langley - 9/4/2004 10:16:47 AM

SpitfireIX

Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I never noticed the armour gaff. Just assumed they were correct as they made it through the UV forums. Same with New Mexico 14"/45s. Never assume!!!

Sorry about that, Ron--I didn't really participate in the forums during beta testing, except to occasionally check on the game's ETA, as I went back to school full-time last year (have only played one turn since fall semester started two weeks ago.

) I just happened to notice that the Mississippi's guns were 14"/45s when I was looking at her flak, but I thought I remembered their being 14"/50s in Seekrieg 4. So I did some research on the web and found out that Seekrieg 4 was correct. So if anyone gives you a hard time about that one, you can just blame it on me for falling down on the job of fact-checking.

[edited for quoting mistake

]

< Message edited by SpitfireIX -- 9/4/2004 3:43:51 AM >

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 235

Data Collected - 9/4/2004 2:26:04 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

Data Collected.

Post your comment/suggestion then take the discussion elsewhere.

This thread is for the Official Scenarios only #1 thru #16 only

_____________________________

(in reply to SpitfireIX)

Post #: 236

RE: Data Collected - 9/4/2004 6:10:29 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Hey Pry, TY for all the work, their is a stagering amount of info hear and I appricate you looking at it all.

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 237

RE: Data Collected - 9/5/2004 5:01:20 AM

SpitfireIX

Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

Scenario 15 1.21

Idaho's delay should be 420131

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/idaho/bb42-ida.html

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 238

RE: Data Collected - 9/5/2004 6:59:02 AM

SpitfireIX

Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

Scenario 15 1.21

55th Fighter Group

This unit eventually was sent to Europe--it really shouldn't be available to transfer to the Pacific. One squadron, though, the 54th Fighter Squadron, was transferred to Alaska Command and fought in the Aleutians. The 55th was one of the first P-38 groups. Technically, they should get P-38Es in early 1942, but I don't expect the design will be altered to accomodate such a small unit that didn't even shoot down a Japanese plane until August 1942

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/55/55th.htm

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/rso/squadrons_flights_pages/0054fs.html

[edited to include link to 55th FG info.]

< Message edited by SpitfireIX -- 9/5/2004 12:50:28 AM >

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to SpitfireIX)

Post #: 239

RE: B-17 Endurance - 9/9/2004 6:02:20 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

After some researc (again connected with my WPO mod), I have determined that in game the USS Arkansas uses the wrong gun.

The 12"/50 Cal Mk8 gun in the game was a totally new design made for the Alaska Class CBs. It was designed to achieve a 39,000 yard range, while firing the same shell used by the Arkansas. The USS Arkansas should be equipped with an older 12in/50 Mk7 Gun. This was the last 12 inch gun built by the US until the new design, which was called the Mk 8. FOr the Mk 7 gun, the max range should only be 34 or 35,000 yards, NOT the 39,000 of the Mk 8 gun.

_____________________________

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 240