Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever?

Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (Full Version)

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

Message

topeverest -> Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 3:04:41 PM)
I would appreciate some advice here what sequence actually occurred that caused such a one sided attack. American DD force ordered to bombard Wake, and the Empire sent defenders. Nominally, the American force was inferior. By My read, the empire force was docked for replenishment and attempts to get underway. but the empire crosses the T and gets no damage on the American fleet. Looks like the American torpedo attack was massively successful early on. Why didn't the empire get more damage on the allied fleet? I've never seen such one sided result. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 07, 44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Wake Island at 136,98, Range 10,000 Yards Japanese aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses E13A1 Jake: 1 destroyed Japanese Ships CL Kashii, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DD Kiyoshimo, Shell hits 37, and is sunk DD Shinonome, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk DD Usugumo, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DD Isonami, Shell hits 26, and is sunk DD Shirayuki, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DD Uranami, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DD Asagiri, Shell hits 25, and is sunk DD Akebono, Shell hits 22, and is sunk DD Chugao #1, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk Allied Ships DD Franks, Shell hits 1 DD Heermann DD Hoel DD Kidd, Shell hits 1 DD Kimberly DD Murray, Shell hits 1 DD Sigourney DD Welles Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Improved night sighting under 71% moonlight Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 71% moonlight: 8,000 yards Range closes to 24,000 yards... Range closes to 18,000 yards... Range closes to 12,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 12,000 yards CONTACT: Japanese radar detects Allied task force at 12,000 yards Range closes to 10,000 yards... CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 10,000 yards Kojima, Hideo crosses the 'T' DD Chugao #1 engages DD Sigourney at 10,000 yards DD Sigourney engages DD Uranami at 10,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Shirayuki at 10,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Usugumo at 10,000 yards DD Shinonome engages DD Sigourney at 10,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Kimberly at 10,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards DD Shirayuki engages DD Welles at 8,000 yards Massive explosion on DD Shinonome DD Shinonome engages DD Sigourney at 8,000 yards DD Akebono engages DD Welles at 8,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Shirayuki at 8,000 yards DD Uranami engages DD Kidd at 8,000 yards DD Shirayuki engages DD Heermann at 8,000 yards DD Shinonome sunk by DD Heermann at 8,000 yards DD Kidd engages DD Usugumo at 8,000 yards Range closes to 7,000 yards DD Chugao #1 engages DD Welles at 7,000 yards DD Kidd engages DD Chugao #1 at 7,000 yards DD Uranami sunk by DD Murray at 7,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Sigourney at 7,000 yards DD Usugumo sunk by DD Hoel at 7,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Isonami at 7,000 yards Range closes to 5,000 yards CL Kashii engages DD Heermann at 5,000 yards DD Isonami engages DD Sigourney at 5,000 yards DD Murray engages DD Isonami at 5,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Isonami at 5,000 yards DD Shirayuki sunk by DD Heermann at 5,000 yards DD Isonami engages DD Hoel at 5,000 yards DD Welles engages DD Kiyoshimo at 5,000 yards DD Isonami engages DD Franks at 5,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards DD Welles engages DD Isonami at 2,000 yards DD Isonami sunk by DD Sigourney at 2,000 yards DD Akebono engages DD Welles at 2,000 yards DD Akebono engages DD Kimberly at 2,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Welles at 2,000 yards Range increases to 3,000 yards CL Kashii engages DD Welles at 3,000 yards DD Chugao #1 sunk by DD Kimberly at 3,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Murray at 3,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Murray at 3,000 yards DD Franks engages DD Kiyoshimo at 3,000 yards DD Hoel engages DD Asagiri at 3,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Heermann at 3,000 yards Kojima, Hideo orders Japanese TF to disengage Range closes to 2,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Welles at 2,000 yards DD Akebono engages DD Sigourney at 2,000 yards DD Kidd engages DD Asagiri at 2,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Kiyoshimo at 2,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Hoel at 2,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Asagiri at 2,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Franks at 2,000 yards Range increases to 4,000 yards CL Kashii engages DD Murray at 4,000 yards DD Sigourney engages DD Akebono at 4,000 yards DD Asagiri engages DD Murray at 4,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Asagiri at 4,000 yards DD Kidd engages DD Asagiri at 4,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Asagiri at 4,000 yards Range increases to 5,000 yards DD Sigourney engages DD Kiyoshimo at 5,000 yards DD Murray engages DD Kiyoshimo at 5,000 yards DD Kidd engages DD Kiyoshimo at 5,000 yards DD Kidd engages DD Akebono at 5,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Akebono at 5,000 yards DD Akebono engages DD Franks at 5,000 yards Range increases to 6,000 yards CL Kashii sunk by DD Franks at 6,000 yards DD Sigourney engages DD Kiyoshimo at 6,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Murray at 6,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Kiyoshimo at 6,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Hoel at 6,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Kiyoshimo at 6,000 yards DD Franks engages DD Kiyoshimo at 6,000 yards Range increases to 8,000 yards DD Welles engages DD Akebono at 8,000 yards DD Sigourney engages DD Asagiri at 8,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Heermann at 8,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Asagiri at 8,000 yards DD Welles engages DD Akebono at 8,000 yards DD Murray engages DD Kiyoshimo at 8,000 yards DD Kimberly engages DD Kiyoshimo at 8,000 yards Range increases to 9,000 yards DD Akebono sunk by DD Sigourney at 9,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Kidd at 9,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Kiyoshimo at 9,000 yards Range increases to 10,000 yards Range closes to 6,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Welles at 6,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Heermann at 6,000 yards DD Franks engages DD Kiyoshimo at 6,000 yards Range increases to 8,000 yards DD Heermann engages DD Kiyoshimo at 8,000 yards Range increases to 9,000 yards DD Welles engages DD Kiyoshimo at 9,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo engages DD Murray at 9,000 yards Range increases to 11,000 yards DD Franks engages DD Kiyoshimo at 11,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards DD Welles engages DD Kiyoshimo at 8,000 yards DD Sigourney engages DD Kiyoshimo at 8,000 yards DD Kiyoshimo sunk by DD Franks at 8,000 yards Combat ends with last Japanese ship sunk...

mind_messing -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 3:32:39 PM)
quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up.

crsutton -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 3:38:47 PM)
Your guess is as good as mine. If you just sent your TF in why was it docked, or was it? That I think is why you got crushed. As far as I have seen whenever you see that "TF is attempting to get underway" message then nothing but bad news is going to follow. That plus you took massive damage on one ship during the first round which if the ship did not separate would have slowed the TF down. But that is speculation on my behalf as I do not know (does anyone) how the combat model exactly works. Yes, a docked TF plus a combination of unfavorable digital events. It is what I love about the game. Bad luck happens and no matter what you can never expect victory. The game would be dull if it were any other way. I "do" feel your pain though. Oct 7 44, both sides have radar but Allied radar is much better, Allies now have working torpedoes, Allied crew experience is excellent after 1/44, fletchers have armor (not that it mattered here) and better more powerful guns with I think a faster rate of fire. This outcome could have very well been similar in a real life encounter in 10/44. I will say that in five years of constant playing, I have never seen either side pull off a more successful torpedo attack.

EHansen -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:00:31 PM)
Isn't CL Kashii a slow training cruiser? If so, it would have slowed the whole TF down.

btd64 -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:18:06 PM)
I concur with the above. They could not get out of there own way and got hammered for it. GP

dcpollay -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks."

HansBolter -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:27:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks." I have found "crossing the T" to be more of a disadvantage in this game than an advantage. Nine times out of ten when I cross the tee only my lead ship fires while getting fired on in return by the entire enemy force. Crossing the T seems to be bass ackwards in this game. Another disadvantage........crossing the T presents broadsides to torpedo attacks.

Dili -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:30:19 PM)
The Fletchers guns are overpowered.

Lokasenna -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:39:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. +1 quote: ORIGINAL: EHansen Isn't CL Kashii a slow training cruiser? If so, it would have slowed the whole TF down. And another +1

offenseman -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:43:50 PM)
1. Ships at anchor 2. Kashii slowing down all the DDs to 18 kts 3. Fletchers are stronger than most IJN CLs. 4. Night engagement with good USN radar Essentially you have 8 Light Cruisers against a training cruiser and 9 DDs, all of whom started at a dead stop and were limited to 18 kts. Perhaps the IJN commander on the scene also had some high aggression which did not allow them to try to run away as quickly, and of course when it tried to run, it could go no faster than 18 kt. I find that to be a fair result. IMHO

Gaspote -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:47:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks." I have found "crossing the T" to be more of a disadvantage in this game than an advantage. Nine times out of ten when I cross the tee only my lead ship fires while getting fired on in return by the entire enemy force. Crossing the T seems to be bass ackwards in this game. Another disadvantage........crossing the T presents broadsides to torpedo attacks. You not supposed to get an advantage when crossing the T. It's the worst case in naval battle except if you are Admiral Nelson and get the wind.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 4:59:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote You not supposed to get an advantage when crossing the T. It's the worst case in naval battle except if you are Admiral Nelson and get the wind. I beg to differ. That was the goal of any naval force to achieve during the time period. You bring your full firepower to bear on the enemy who can only respond with fire from the bow. Crossing the T should be a major tactical advantage in combat. As to your Nelson comment, getting the weather gage was always a tactical advantage during the period, but every Captain tried to rake (cross the T) of an enemy ship's bow or stern if given the opportunity to do so.

Paladin1dcs -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 5:01:53 PM)
As others have said, don't think of this as 8 Allied DDs versus a IJN CL/DD task force. Fletchers are really more like small CLs than the DDs you're used too seeing. Just be glad that the Allied force didn't have some true CLs like the Brooklyns or Clevelands.

koniu -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 5:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks." I have found "crossing the T" to be more of a disadvantage in this game than an advantage. Nine times out of ten when I cross the tee only my lead ship fires while getting fired on in return by the entire enemy force. Crossing the T seems to be bass ackwards in this game. Another disadvantage........crossing the T presents broadsides to torpedo attacks. You not supposed to get an advantage when crossing the T. It's the worst case in naval battle except if you are Admiral Nelson and get the wind. It all depend on formation. In "classical" battle crossing the T should be only good thing. You are able to fire all Your guns in broadside volley while enemy is forced to use only forward guns and very often ship in front are blocking others ships in formation to even use forward guns or fire torpedoes Disadvantage of crossing the T in WW2 standards is that You are very expose to TT attack. All Your ships are big targets. Especially when moving in slow 18kn formation So crossing the T should give some bonus to gun fire ratio and reduce chance of torpedo hit to side that cross T. Other side should have disadvantage in gun fire ratio and numbers of TT fired, but TTs should have better chance of hitting. I could be wrong in all what i write so correct me As for battle result. Fletcher are the same on sea war what P-47 is in air war. You can expect only worst when You meet them

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 5:31:15 PM)
Other than submarines, PT boats and Motor Torpedo boats I don't know of too many warships that had bow facing torpedo launchers? How can a force that has their T crossed even bring their torpedoes to bear? As to the combat. I think the fact the Japanese crossed the T is simply the combat engine stating the orientation of the Japanese force. I agree with all the other comments. Ships were not underway (and full broadside exposed) which negates crossing the T as the Japanese force was not moving and the CL would have killed the speed of the Japanese DD's anyway. The Fletchers were at a huge tactical advantage and it shows in the results.

oldman45 -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 6:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks." I have found "crossing the T" to be more of a disadvantage in this game than an advantage. Nine times out of ten when I cross the tee only my lead ship fires while getting fired on in return by the entire enemy force. Crossing the T seems to be bass ackwards in this game. Another disadvantage........crossing the T presents broadsides to torpedo attacks. I am glad I am not the only one that thinks the crossing the T is not working right.

Lokasenna -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 6:48:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF begins to get underway Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up. The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks." I have found "crossing the T" to be more of a disadvantage in this game than an advantage. Nine times out of ten when I cross the tee only my lead ship fires while getting fired on in return by the entire enemy force. Crossing the T seems to be bass ackwards in this game. Another disadvantage........crossing the T presents broadsides to torpedo attacks. I am glad I am not the only one that thinks the crossing the T is not working right. I think it's OK. It's not a supreme advantage, but it does seem to limit things - such as only Front facing weapons firing, at least at the beginning of the engagement. In short engagements where the T has been crossed, I've checked the ships that "got crossed" afterwards - the LS/RS/R/C guns have less ammo expenditure, meaning they fired less. This is anecdotal, but crossing the T can't be any worse than simply meeting each others' battle lines. It also says to me that the TF commander has an edge on his opponent in the Naval skill department, which brings general advantages throughout the fight.

topeverest -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 6:53:14 PM)
Thanks for the help guys. Not knowing the combat secret sauce, I also assume the kiss of death was the TF deciding to refuel and being caught cold. I need to be sure to keep refuel disabled in the future. What strikes me so odd is that there were almost no hits on allied ships. I would have expected several more even in a shellacking.

Lowpe -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 7:18:31 PM)
Don't use training cruisers in surface groups in 44! You can use them to help escort cargo ships and tankers...

crsutton -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 7:44:39 PM)
Yes, I overlooked the slow cruiser which slowed the TFs maximum speed to 18 knots. That in itself was a serious gaffe. Almost halved the speed of the TF. Oh well. It is not like we all have not done something just as painful.[;)]

Gaspote -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 7:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote You not supposed to get an advantage when crossing the T. It's the worst case in naval battle except if you are Admiral Nelson and get the wind. I beg to differ. That was the goal of any naval force to achieve during the time period. You bring your full firepower to bear on the enemy who can only respond with fire from the bow. Crossing the T should be a major tactical advantage in combat. As to your Nelson comment, getting the weather gage was always a tactical advantage during the period, but every Captain tried to rake (cross the T) of an enemy ship's bow or stern if given the opportunity to do so. Yep I agree, i understood the opposite. In french we use something like "blocking the T" so for me crossing the T is like you try to go trough but I was wrong.

geofflambert -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/17/2014 8:34:18 PM)
Crossing the T worked out well at Tsushima, but it was key in the days before turrets. With turrets fore and aft the line only need turn 30 some degrees in line abreast to bring their broadsides to bear. Plus they could wiggle left and right while continueing to close, thus avoiding enemy torpedoes. The crossing formation would also be a nice target to be torpedoed. I don't know enough about the level of radar fire control at that date, but it could be another factor.

Dili -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 1:59:40 AM)
I don't agree geoff, crossing the T is significant advantage, the force have more guns and fire first. I agree that the crossing the T doesn't appear to work well. But the player bungled here choosing like many said a slow cruiser. Anyway the issue with Fletchers - in a short range night combat like this it is non issue - is that Japanese gun being a long gun /50 it should have a significant range advantage over a /38 gun. In the game data it barely exist. One thing that Japanese players need to keep in mind is that a Fletcher retains 8 guns main guns while most Japanese destroyers go from 6 main guns to 4 guns with 25mm AA uprgrades. So a Fletcher broadside is double of a Yugumo. The only Japanese destroyer that keeps up are the Akizukis but those should be saved for AA coverage not surface combat.

witpqs -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 2:35:29 AM)
Dili I don't know what you mean. Fletchers have 5 main guns, not 8, yes? As far as ballistics, that is what it was known to be, not what the theory says it will likely be. Many other things go into it. Anyway, are you talking about Babes where all the naval guns were calibrated to the same standard a long time ago? A lot of that data was fed into stock a while back, too.

Dili -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 3:19:50 AM)
You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic.

witpqs -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 3:33:12 AM)
I realize I also forgot that fire control is not a separate item in this game, so the gun stats have to take that into account as well.

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 6:59:46 AM)
This is October 1944 This would be much more of a actual issue if the fight went the other way. By 1944 USN torpedoes actually work and against flimsy targets like this a single torpedo can be deadly. Add to that that the US by this point in the game usually has high experience, advanced radar and upgraded ships. I picture this fight happening in the night in a almost full moon. The Japanese detect the Allies at 12,000 yards and light their boilers and begin to raise steam. The range falls to 10,000 yards as the USN hits the IJN with searchlights and smothers them in rapid fire salvos. The IJN is illuminated against the coast line. Not all of their ships are going to reach sailing power at the same time. In fact if they were at anchor the ships would have to raise electric power and probably have the crew falling out of their bunks to an general alarm. They would get underway 1 by 1 and the USN would be at full power, battle stations and have all the advantages. I see nothing wrong here.

JuanG -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 8:47:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic. Game ranges are in kyards, not km. Game data does give 5in/38 18kyard range when it is actually 17,3 kyard which should probably be round to 17 kyard instead. Ballistically the relatively narrow gap in performance despite the difference in barrel length and muzzle velocity (2600fps vs 3000fps in favour of the 5in/50) can be attributed to the heavier shell in the US gun (better energy retention) and the blunter shape of the Japanese shell (more energy loss), which means even though initial muzzle energy is ~23% greater on the Japanese shell, its range is only ~15% longer.

Dili -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 10:08:20 AM)
quote: Game ranges are in kyards, not km. Game data does give 5in/38 18kyard range when it is actually 17,3 kyard which should probably be round to 17 kyard instead. Ballistically the relatively narrow gap in performance despite the difference in barrel length and muzzle velocity (2600fps vs 3000fps in favour of the 5in/50) can be attributed to the heavier shell in the US gun (better energy retention) and the blunter shape of the Japanese shell (more energy loss), which means even though initial muzzle energy is ~23% greater on the Japanese shell, its range is only ~15% longer. Okay kyds explains it. Thanks.

Paladin1dcs -> RE: Most one sided Fletcher Fight ever? (6/18/2014 1:15:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic. I think you're thinking of the pre-war Porter and Sumers class DDs. They had four twin 5" mounts and are, frankly, some of the best DDs available to the Allies until the Fletchers come along. Great in the AAA role and tough to beat in the surface role as well. The only thing that they don't have, which I wish they did, is armor like the Fletchers.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.28125