Which Ship........(6)

Which Ship........(6) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

ctid98 -> Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:14:11 PM)
Was laid down before Dreadnought and had the design not been changed mid construction would have beaten the Dreadnought to completion and presumablyits name would have defined the breed?????? One last roll of the dice........ Answers on a postcard.

sprior -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:19:01 PM)
Tough one man... But it's better than real work, right?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:20:24 PM)
The Japanese Aki I believe.

ctid98 -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker The Japanese Aki I believe. oooh, lets see what the survey said, UH UH - X [:D][:D][:D]

sprior -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:26:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctid98 quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker The Japanese Aki I believe. oooh, lets see what the survey said, UH UH - X [:D][:D][:D] Not the Japanese Satsumas? Aki wes a member of this class... Satsuma class semi-dreadnought battleships Displ: 19,372 tons normal; 19,700 tons full load (Aki: 20,100 tons normal; 21,800 tons full load) Dim: 482 x 83.5 x 27.5 feet (Aki: 492 x 83.5 x 27.5 feet) Prop: VTE engines, 20 boilers, 17,300 hp, 2 shafts, 18.25 knots (Aki: Steam turbines, 15 boilers, 24,000 hp, 20 knots) Crew: 887 (Aki: 931) Arm: 2 dual 12/45, 6 dual 10/45, 12 4.7/20, 4 3.1/40, 4 3.1/28, 5 18 inch TT (sub) (Aki: 2 dual 12/45, 6 dual 10/45, 8 6/45, 12 3.1/40, 4 3.1/28, 5 18 inch TT (sub)) Armor: 4-9 inch belt, 2 inch deck, 7-9 inch barbettes, 7-9 inch turrets, 6 inch CT Designed as all-big-gun ships (2 dual, 4 single 12/45) but completed with mixed 10 and 12 inch main battery due to shortages of 12 inch guns. Ordered as identical sisters, but Aki was delayed by the unavailability of a building slip. As a result of the delay she was fitted with numerous improvements in machinery and armament. Each had 2 3.1 inch AA added during WWI; Aki had 4 3.1/40 removed.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:27:41 PM)
You are referring to Cuniberti's design principles. Aki was one such, originally designed with an all 12 inch armament but delays caused her to be launched with mixed 12 and 10 inch.

ctid98 -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:35:07 PM)
The actual ship was the Sutsuma laid down on 15 May 1905 originally with x12 12 inch guns but changed to x8 12 inch guns plus x6 10 inch guns. The Aki was launched a year later. Gentlemen, I'll leave you for tonight, thank you for the sport. [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

sprior -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctid98 The actual ship was the Sutsuma laid down on 15 May 1905 originally with x12 12 inch guns but changed to x8 12 inch guns plus x6 10 inch guns. The Aki was launched a year later. Gentlemen, I'll leave you for tonight, thank you for the sport. [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] Good night ctid98. Did I forget I did 16 years in the RN and did a paper on "The Strategy and Develeopment of The German Navy from 1926 - 1945" which kinda gets you involved in the RN's history too... Oh, and I lived in Orkney too for 4 years where you can't get away from history, ever.

Tankerace -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/1/2004 9:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ctid98 The actual ship was the Sutsuma laid down on 15 May 1905 originally with x12 12 inch guns but changed to x8 12 inch guns plus x6 10 inch guns. The Aki was launched a year later. Gentlemen, I'll leave you for tonight, thank you for the sport. [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] Sorry bud. She had 4 Elswick 12"/45 cals and 12 Elswich 10"/45 cals. In japanese service, bopth were known as 41st Year Type guns. Otherwise, righ ton the money. Oh, and BTW, the USS SOuth Carolina was designed BEFORE dreadnought, but laid down and completed after her.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 6:03:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace quote: ORIGINAL: ctid98 The actual ship was the Sutsuma laid down on 15 May 1905 originally with x12 12 inch guns but changed to x8 12 inch guns plus x6 10 inch guns. The Aki was launched a year later. Gentlemen, I'll leave you for tonight, thank you for the sport. [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] Sorry bud. She had 4 Elswick 12"/45 cals and 12 Elswich 10"/45 cals. In japanese service, bopth were known as 41st Year Type guns. Otherwise, righ ton the money. Oh, and BTW, the USS SOuth Carolina was designed BEFORE dreadnought, but laid down and completed after her. USS Ain't Scared O' Nothin'!!

Tankerace -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 6:08:33 AM)
[:D]

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 11:01:17 AM)
Of the top of my head, I don't think the Satsuma counts, the principles of "Dreadnought"s design involved being faster as well as all-big-gun - Max speed 21 knots, due to the steam turbine propulsion she had. IIRC she was the first capital ship to be fitted with them. The old reciprocating engines in the pre-dreadnoughts couldn't sustain their speeds for very long - less than an hour? - and in any case they were 2 or 3 knots slower. It's amazing what a couple of knots will do for you in a tactical situation, but not olny that, it plays a major part in opeertaional use as well. Jackie is said to have declared that "Speed is armour!" which I think is a little too much, but there's a reason why all the major actions in the North Sea in WW1 featured BC, and none of them had BB on their own. Steve.

Tankerace -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 6:39:34 PM)
But remember, several US dreadnoughts, the last being the Oklahoma, were still fitted with reciprocating machinery, not turbines. Yet they were still called dreadnoughts.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 6:49:16 PM)
Hey, I'm not to blame if they got it wrong! [;)] The quest for speed is also what 'fuelled' (bad pun) the change from coal to oil, and why the "Queen Elizabeths" were built with oil fired boilers - and were, in 1916, the fastest battleship squadron afloat. Which is why they were able to save Beatty's butt at Jutland - can you imagine what would have happened had the 3rd BCS (Invincible et al) been with the BCF instead of 5th BS (4 out of 5 of the QE's)? Ain't "What if?" a fun thing? [8D] Steve.

tsimmonds -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 6:52:14 PM)
quote: can you imagine what would have happened had the 3rd BCS (Invincible et al) been with the BCF instead of 5th BS (4 out of 5 of the QE's)? Three magazine explosions at "Windy Corner."

Nikademus -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 7:00:32 PM)
or maybe one less mag explosion. 3rd BCS's shooting was excellent at Jutland though visibibility favored the Germans during the Run to the South. A better question would be, what if 5BS hadn't suffered it's initial signal failure and fallen behind Beatty before contact with Hipper's 1st Scouting Group?

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 7:04:05 PM)
You really need to get hold of "Strategic Naval Gunnery". Paul Schaffer has done an awesome job of re-creating the tactical decisions and limitations of that era. http://members.tripod.com/hsr_historicalgames/index.html Steve.

Nikademus -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/2/2004 8:20:00 PM)
Just recently secured a 2nd copy of Cambell's "Jutland" the statiscal ad-nausium analysis of the battle. (1st copy stolen along with the bag it was sitting in). Heavy reading to say the least. I had "Rules of the game" next on my reading list but i'll check out your book rec. thx [:)]

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/3/2004 2:51:45 AM)
Actually, SNG is a simulation, not a book. Although there's a lot of 'designer's notes' and backup material available... Steve[;)]

Tankerace -> RE: Which Ship........(6) (9/3/2004 3:04:41 AM)
I want to get it, but $104 is an even bigger headache than WiTP....

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375