Was xAKL class an ocean-going class?

Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (Full Version)

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

Message

Yaab -> Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/7/2016 7:30:30 PM)
Or was it a coastal/Great Lakes class?

bradfordkay -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/7/2016 8:27:07 PM)
I tend to think of them more along the lines of "tramp steamers" - the smaller freight ships that serve lesser ports of call. May will call them "coastal freighters" but they are often used on runs such as New Zealand to the Marquesas or Ecuador to Easter Island. There isn't enough commerce on these runs to require the capacity of the large freighters so the small ones take the job but they are certainly venturing out as ocean-going vessels.

geofflambert -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/7/2016 9:44:56 PM)
This I believe was an xAKL [image]local://upfiles/37002/6BEC9C17AB284551BFA6631BFB190D9E.jpg[/image]

Dili -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/7/2016 10:06:10 PM)
Depends on sea state/weather.

crsutton -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 6:04:27 AM)
In short yes. They were capable of ocean trips and probably just as seaworthy as a large ship if built to the same standards. Aside from capacity, the real shortcoming of smaller ships is that they are affected more by adverse weather. That is they go slower. Seas and wind are not going to hinder a larger ships as much. So, they were better suited for coastal trade and short hops. Still they are seaworthy. In game terms it is an abstraction anyways. An AKL could be any variety of small ship-passenger ferrys, large barges, and so on. Some of which probably would not be suitable for the open sea. They were still using large commercial sailing ships during the war. Few and far between but they were there. In game terms the AKL fills all of these roles. Great lakes class are not ocean going by design. Being long and narrow, super heavy seas would break their backs.

Yaab -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 6:23:24 AM)
Thanks!

Dili -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 10:58:10 AM)
US tiny subchasers went whole Atlantic to North Africa. It depends obviously on weather/season

crsutton -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 3:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili US tiny subchasers went whole Atlantic to North Africa. It depends obviously on weather/season Yes, but any boat or ship if constructed correctly and in the hands of an experienced crew should be seaworthy-in most any but the most dire conditions. Think of the little fishing boats regularly working the North Atlantic or Alaskan waters. You can't get any more hostile seas that you would find in those waters. But those guys manage it every day.

Canoerebel -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 3:43:30 PM)
The extent to which the Allies were creative in using relatively small vessels at great distances in important operations is illustrated by Operation Watchtower. When much of the big fleet ships left a few days after D-Day, APDs and YPs (I think the sailors called the latter "Yippies") stayed in theater. The YPs were used to ferry troops between the two main islands but also in combat operations like shuttling marine Raider detachments up the coast for patrol and reconnaissance missions. As for xAKLs, wasn't Mister Roberts based upon an xAKL doing supply runs between Allied-controlled islands. I think so. Man, I can't remember the name of the ship...but I do recall the announcement over the loudspeaker: "Now heah this....Now heah this...reveille"...and "Now heah this....Now heah this...Because another cigarette butt was found in the captain's palm tree, there will be no movies for three weeks." Edited to add: Was it the Reluctant?

bradfordkay -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 5:10:29 PM)
Yes, it was the Reluctant.

geofflambert -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 9:37:21 PM)
Ok, now this thread is taking on a different cast. Let's think up good ship names. How about the Dismissive, the Perturbed, the Melancholy, the Agnostic, the Constipated?

szmike -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 10:35:54 PM)
and the Gornified [:'(]

RagingKrikkit -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/8/2016 11:23:46 PM)
Perhaps the Conscript, the Labor Camp and the Torpedo Magnet?

geofflambert -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 1:10:03 AM)
The Irrefutable. The Reprehensible. The Ignominious. The Impractical.

rustysi -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 1:52:38 AM)
And they can all be under the HQ CinCUS.[:D]

BBfanboy -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 6:51:19 AM)
Don't forget the "Deplorable". [:)]

Canoerebel -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 11:29:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi And they can all be under the HQ CinCUS.[:D] I just got this. If the Kangaroo Court were still in existence, this might merit an indictment as the greatest AE pun of all time.

Zorch -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 1:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi And they can all be under the HQ CinCUS.[:D] I just got this. If the Kangaroo Court were still in existence, this might merit an indictment as the greatest AE pun of all time. [&o] [&o] [&o] How about HMS Disregard or HMS Ignore?

MakeeLearn -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 1:44:05 PM)
HMS For Sale

MakeeLearn -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 1:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton In short yes. They were capable of ocean trips and probably just as seaworthy as a large ship if built to the same standards. Aside from capacity, the real shortcoming of smaller ships is that they are affected more by adverse weather. That is they go slower. Seas and wind are not going to hinder a larger ships as much. So, they were better suited for coastal trade and short hops. Still they are seaworthy. In game terms it is an abstraction anyways. An AKL could be any variety of small ship-passenger ferrys, large barges, and so on. Some of which probably would not be suitable for the open sea. They were still using large commercial sailing ships during the war. Few and far between but they were there. In game terms the AKL fills all of these roles. Great lakes class are not ocean going by design. Being long and narrow, super heavy seas would break their backs. The Edmund Fitzgerald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vST6hVRj2A

crsutton -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 3:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton In short yes. They were capable of ocean trips and probably just as seaworthy as a large ship if built to the same standards. Aside from capacity, the real shortcoming of smaller ships is that they are affected more by adverse weather. That is they go slower. Seas and wind are not going to hinder a larger ships as much. So, they were better suited for coastal trade and short hops. Still they are seaworthy. In game terms it is an abstraction anyways. An AKL could be any variety of small ship-passenger ferrys, large barges, and so on. Some of which probably would not be suitable for the open sea. They were still using large commercial sailing ships during the war. Few and far between but they were there. In game terms the AKL fills all of these roles. Great lakes class are not ocean going by design. Being long and narrow, super heavy seas would break their backs. The Edmund Fitzgerald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vST6hVRj2A Yes, my old union. I remember the date well. The more recent loss of the El Faro took a lot of my union brothers as well. Sometimes at sea, it is just your time. No matter what the ship.

BBfanboy -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 6:34:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi And they can all be under the HQ CinCUS.[:D] I just got this. If the Kangaroo Court were still in existence, this might merit an indictment as the greatest AE pun of all time. No pun - that was the official abbreviation for the office of the Commander-In-Chief US Fleet before Pearl Harbour. The irony of the pronunciation "sink-us" was not lost on Admiral King and he changed it to ComInCh.

rustysi -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/9/2016 10:18:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi And they can all be under the HQ CinCUS.[:D] I just got this. If the Kangaroo Court were still in existence, this might merit an indictment as the greatest AE pun of all time. No pun - that was the official abbreviation for the office of the Commander-In-Chief US Fleet before Pearl Harbour. The irony of the pronunciation "sink-us" was not lost on Admiral King and he changed it to ComInCh. Yup, that's what made me think of it.[:D]

Anthropoid -> RE: Was xAKL class an ocean-going class? (10/11/2016 5:49:11 PM)
Depending on how gutsy you are, even a humble outrigger cannoe _IS_ "ocean going." At least the pre-historic folks who ventured forth from Asia into Oceania thought so! [image]http://tw.greywool.com/i/0HfxK.jpg[/image]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625