RE: *Flash Traffic*

RE: *Flash Traffic* (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

herwin -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/17/2011 6:38:58 PM)
Windspeed over deck?

Chickenboy -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/17/2011 8:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor 10 ELEVATORS? What a waste of space! Also, seems that radar equipment is seriously lacking. And guns are in questionable pattern. Why there are no crew on deck? And where are lifeboats? Lifeboats? That's defeatist talk! You don't need lifeboats on an invulnerable ship, sir. It couldn't possibly sink.

JeffroK -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/17/2011 11:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Why would the elevators rise up ABOVE the flight deck? Is is a case of when one goes down, another goes up???[:D] The elevator has two floors. Two planes at a time load onto it from two different hanger decks, then it unloads them on the flight deck one at a time! As actually installed in Kaga. Readily apparent in the frequently reproduced shot of KdB en route Hawaii. I guess that construction of such a ship IRL would have posed some 'interesting' problems for the shipyard. 3 shipyards, just bolt them together. Its further development would be 2 big zippers (or velco) which would allow it to convert into 2 CV and a BB for navigating small bodies of water like the Indian Ocean,

Mynok -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/17/2011 11:27:03 PM)
Zippers....[:D][:D][:D] And who would be doing the pulling, might I ask? Godzirra? Mothra? Moby Kamikaze? That might actually be a useful design with armored decks. A quadriplegic fruit fly could land a bomb on that deck.

John 3rd -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 5:10:59 AM)
How many Points does it cost to build??? If I can start with it on Dec 7th then count me in! BANZAI! [sm=sterb029.gif]

Cribtop -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 6:17:21 AM)
The B-10 circa 1943!

inqistor -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 7:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor 10 ELEVATORS? What a waste of space! Also, seems that radar equipment is seriously lacking. And guns are in questionable pattern. Why there are no crew on deck? And where are lifeboats? Lifeboats? That's defeatist talk! You don't need lifeboats on an invulnerable ship, sir. It couldn't possibly sink. Oh yeah, gravely mistake. It is obvious this ship can split into, at least, 3 parts, so damage of one DO NOT lower its efficiency.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 10:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Windspeed over deck? And I still want to know where they got those French Quad 15" guns & turrets...

herwin -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 12:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Windspeed over deck? And I still want to know where they got those French Quad 15" guns & turrets... Or were they RN 14" quads?

CV 2 -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 2:21:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs That thing there seems to be a trimaran. Which begs the question... the US Navy has studied several times the idea of using a catamaran or trimaran hull for aircraft carriers, given the huge area they can provide. Yet they always gave up on that and continued with the traditional single-hull carrier design that has been in place since 1950. I've read the main concern has been about a catamaran's ability to resist asymetrical damage - problem a trimaran would certainly avoid. Anyone knows more about that? If memory serves, all US carriers are designed to be able to pass through the Panama Canal.

Mark VII -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 3:53:12 PM)
Drat. Dave has finally spotted my new weapon that was instrumental in sinking his fleet off Tjilatjap. Where will it appear next Raverdave? quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Flash Traffic Attention all Allied Fanboys, Intel has just received the first pictures of the rumored IJN Battle-Carrier. [image]local://upfiles/5619/A2A78AFC5EA0427D97D9FA4BC7B9A1E0.jpg[/image]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 4:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV 2 If memory serves, all US carriers are designed to be able to pass through the Panama Canal. The Essex class was the last which could fit. Midway, Forrestal, etc. had to go around the Horn.

herwin -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 6:31:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV 2 quote: ORIGINAL: fbs That thing there seems to be a trimaran. Which begs the question... the US Navy has studied several times the idea of using a catamaran or trimaran hull for aircraft carriers, given the huge area they can provide. Yet they always gave up on that and continued with the traditional single-hull carrier design that has been in place since 1950. I've read the main concern has been about a catamaran's ability to resist asymetrical damage - problem a trimaran would certainly avoid. Anyone knows more about that? If memory serves, all US carriers are designed to be able to pass through the Panama Canal. Not the Midways and later. The post-Iowa BBs were also too wide.

Chickenboy -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 7:21:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: CV 2 quote: ORIGINAL: fbs That thing there seems to be a trimaran. Which begs the question... the US Navy has studied several times the idea of using a catamaran or trimaran hull for aircraft carriers, given the huge area they can provide. Yet they always gave up on that and continued with the traditional single-hull carrier design that has been in place since 1950. I've read the main concern has been about a catamaran's ability to resist asymetrical damage - problem a trimaran would certainly avoid. Anyone knows more about that? If memory serves, all US carriers are designed to be able to pass through the Panama Canal. Not the Midways and later. The post-Iowa BBs were also too wide. Post Iowa BBs? You mean literally after Iowa in the Iowa class? [&:]

witpqs -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 7:27:01 PM)
I presumed he meant the Montana class had they been built.

herwin -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 8:59:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I presumed he meant the Montana class had they been built. Yep. 121 ft beam. The Midways were 113 ft.

CV 2 -> RE: Flash Traffic (6/18/2011 10:41:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I presumed he meant the Montana class had they been built. Yep. 121 ft beam. The Midways were 113 ft. They built a class since the Essex? [X(] My wife likes boats. In the army, we fly over, parachute in, fly supplies in, fly troops out. Boats are for squids and women [:'(]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5625