Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships! - 1/7/2003 4:24:05 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

OK, while the other poll is still going strong, I thought it best to run another one--out of the following battleships that DO NOT appear in UV, (and many didn't appear in WW2 AT ALL) which ones do people like the most? :)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

Post #: 1

- 1/7/2003 9:55:19 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

So far I'm surprised how many votes the Iowas have gotten when there are so many other sexy ships around...could it be that more than one person in here has served on one of them????

;)

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 2

- 1/7/2003 10:17:54 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

No, its probably because it could kick the crap out of any ship afloat ever in a gun battle.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 3

- 1/7/2003 10:46:03 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Nobody did it better than the Iowas. When summing up the era of the Dreadnoughts, this was the pinnacle of design.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 4

- 1/7/2003 12:22:19 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

true, for ships that made it afloat, but how would the Iowa have fared against, say Yamato B or Fuhrer if they had ever left paper?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 5

- 1/7/2003 12:30:05 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

And wouldn't the Montanas have been the real 'pinnacle' of the dreadnought age, owing to its combination of armor, firepower, accuracy, and AA capability?

(I would just love it if we had sent the USS New Hampshire to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm...
:) )

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 6

- 1/7/2003 1:23:38 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

As they say in football, "That's why they play the games." If it didn't leave paper, ...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 7

- 1/7/2003 1:52:27 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

LOL

:D

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 8

Iowa Speed - 1/8/2003 2:32:14 AM

mbatch729

Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

I believe the Iowa Class speed was a few knots higher than 31 ;) And yes, I served on board the USS IOWA. As FDR said, "Talk softly, and carry a Big Stick" USS Iowa, BB-61 - The Big Stick

D*mn right about the fire control radar. A modernized version for the 5" guns, in '89, was still more accurate than an Aegis class cruiser.

(former) FC3(SW) Batch

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 9

Re: Iowa Speed - 1/8/2003 2:41:37 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mbatch729
[B]..."Talk softly, and carry a Big Stick"...[/B][/QUOTE]Uhhhh, wasn't that Uncle [I]Teddy[/I] Roosevelt?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 10

Battleship top speed - 1/8/2003 3:01:19 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Well when I served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 (Iowa class) we did a speed trial and hit 39.8 knots at max speed.

You shoulda seen the rooster tail on that baby...!

Granted it was in '89 and I suspect the boilers might have been upgraded since WWII but that's still **** fast for such a monster!

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 11

- 1/8/2003 4:17:03 AM

Dunedain

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline

Hi to all those who served on the Iowa class battleships!

I met a fellow who served on I think it was the New Jersey.
He worked, at least for a time, not sure if it was his
regular assignment, in one of the turrets loading powder
during firing of the main guns. He said it was the hardest
he ever worked in his life. :)

We need to get those giants back in service ASAP, we need their
fire support and general destructive capabilities for the
various wars we are going to be fighting all over the world
against these countries that are aiding and supporting Osama
and his bunch.

Nothing else can do what a battleship can. Namely, laying down
utterly devastating firepower on demand in large quantities from
shore to far inland, with super fast time-on-target ability.

39.8 knots? Wow! That is scorching fast! :)

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 12

- 1/8/2003 5:24:09 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

I had a lot of discussions like this with the TAO on midwatch and such about how cost effective a BB is versus a carrier air group.

Also keep in mind we had 32 tomahawk and 16 Harpoon missles on board.

Yeah, that's firepower baby!

We could run for one month on what it cost to keep a carrier going for 1 day.

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 13

Re: Battleship top speed - 1/8/2003 7:02:32 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by m0ngoose
[B]Well when I served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 (Iowa class) we did a speed trial and hit 39.8 knots at max speed.

You shoulda seen the rooster tail on that baby...!

Granted it was in '89 and I suspect the boilers might have been upgraded since WWII but that's still **** fast for such a monster! [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't believe that for a second.

Designed top speed was 32.5 kts. 40 kts? Few knots, maybe.

One article on this: http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-029.htm

Another source: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky1/missouri.htm - No mention of new boilers there.

I don't doubt you believe that you were going 39.8 knots, but unless you've got a source that backs you up, I'm forced to put the claim with the 60-kt Nimitz claims.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 14

- 1/8/2003 7:12:48 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

Could there be a mistake in measurement?

Nautical Mile = 2000 yds
Statute Mile = 1760 yds

Wouldn't 33 kts measure out somewhere about 38 MPH?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 15

- 1/8/2003 7:25:57 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by m0ngoose
[B]I had a lot of discussions like this with the TAO on midwatch and such about how cost effective a BB is versus a carrier air group.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Lots of impartial people there, I imagine. :D

[B][QUOTE]
Also keep in mind we had 32 tomahawk and 16 Harpoon missles on board.

Yeah, that's firepower baby!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Not really, compared to the VLS Ticos that were entering the fleet at the same time as the modernized BBs. Hell, the Iowa's missile complement could be carried by a Spruance-class destroyer. Its not that impressive.

The Spruance could also defend itself against undersea threats, which the Iowa couldn't, and had a better AAW defenses. All this on about a quarter of the crew.

Not to mention that a 5" gun is a better shore bombardment weapon anyway. Who did most of the useful work on D-Day?.... that's right, the destroyers that got in close.

quote:

We could run for one month on what it cost to keep a carrier going for 1 day.

And be less effective than a destroyer that cost less to operate.

If enemy troops don't want to get bombarded by a battleship, they just have to move inland about 20 miles.

The battleships were reactivated in the 80s because Reagan wanted everything that could fight ready to go. They were expensive to modernize, operate, man, and weren't as effective as modern vessels, and there's a good reason that they'll never fight again.

Heck, its great they won't fight again. Now we all get to enjoy them as museums.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 16

- 1/8/2003 11:48:33 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

I think that the battleships remain, as they were in their own age, most important *symbols* of national power. Destroyers might cost much less to build and man, but they simply do not such elicit such emotional reactions from the public as Mighty Mo and others. In Japan they're still bemoaning the loss of Yamato, but does anyone care about Yukikaze?

Congress understands the power-projecting image of battleships, and I think that's why there is a certain reluctance to scrap them--or to make them entirely "museum-ready," in that their controls are pretty much welded in place, like for instance BB-59, now sitting in Fall River, MA.

Also, I understand from reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" that battleships nowadays would be basically invulnerable to anti-ship missiles? They are made to punch through the thin hulls of contemporary warships, and would basically bounce off of serious armor plating. Also, I understand that as part of Surface-Action-Groups, Iowas would not have had to worry about their air defense or underwater defense, that was what the picket destroyers and frigates for, as well as the Aegis cruiser that always accompanied these groups. And in addition, they were shown during the Bikini tests to be pretty much impervious to tactical nuke blasts--as long as they were buttoned up, only the upper works were trashed. Finally, I've read that there was a Phase III refurbishment planned which would have replaced the rear turret with more Tomahawk launchers or possibly SAM's, but they decided it wasn't worth it due to the cost.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 17

- 1/8/2003 12:36:47 PM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlc27
Congress understands the power-projecting image of battleships, and I think that's why there is a certain reluctance to scrap them--or to make them entirely "museum-ready," in that their controls are pretty much welded in place, like for instance BB-59, now sitting in Fall River, MA.
[/QUOTE]
They may be "in reserve", but those ships will never see service again. Keeping big expensive ships around for the sake of having big ships is stupid.

quote:

Also, I understand from reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" that battleships nowadays would be basically invulnerable to anti-ship missiles? They are made to punch through the thin hulls of contemporary warships, and would basically bounce off of serious armor plating.

Clancy's not the best source for naval matters. :D An ASM, while not penetrated the deck, would play hell with the electronics needed to fight the ship. A deaf, dumb, and blind ships is mission-killed. Hell, its worse, because you have to get the broken thing back home.

The BBs are HORRIBLY vulnerable to submarines. One heavy torpedo under the keel of a BB? Broken.

quote:

Also, I understand that as part of Surface-Action-Groups, Iowas would not have had to worry about their air defense or underwater defense, that was what the picket destroyers and frigates for, as well as the Aegis cruiser that always accompanied these groups.

The 16" guns on the Iowa are too short ranged for ship to ship combat. A rapid-fire 5" gun makes for better fire support (hell, a platoon of mortars makes for better fire support).

So, guns aside. We have the missile firepower of a destroyer. To utilize this ship with massive operating costs (compared to lighter units), we need to escort it with destroyers and cruisers? Doesn't it make more sense to have, say, another couple destroyers for the price of one old battleship that's expensive to man?

quote:

And in addition, they were shown during the Bikini tests to be pretty much impervious to tactical nuke blasts--as long as they were buttoned up, only the upper works were trashed.

And with the trashed upper works goes all the radios, radars, and bits of electronics to fight today's naval battles.

quote:

Finally, I've read that there was a Phase III refurbishment planned which would have replaced the rear turret with more Tomahawk launchers or possibly SAM's, but they decided it wasn't worth it due to the cost. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly. The things aren't worth the cost. There is nothing useful on the BBs that can't be done nowadays better by smaller and cheaper ships.

Look in the dictionary under "Obsolete" and there will be a picture of a battleship.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 18

- 1/8/2003 1:51:21 PM

rawink

Posts: 194
Joined: 4/30/2002
From: Tallahassee, FL
Status: offline

I voted Iowa BB.. to me it is the 2nd sexiest ship ever built, behind the USS Constitution. Not because of what it can do in 2003, but because of what it DID do between 1944-1994.

I have always thought the Iowa class had some of the most attractive "Lines" and Bow rake of any surface ship ever made, there was something distinctly "Feminine" about the ships, they made you want to address the class as "Her" or "She", very handsome ships.

These ships were built to counter the IJN 18" Heavies, but never really got the chance. And basically spent their 50 year carerrs as bombardment ships in WWII, Korea,Viet nam, lebanon and the persian gulf (Yes, even the BGM-109's were used as bombardment in a sense). The very fact that 19 year old kids shipped out in 91 on an Iowa that their GRANDFATHERS shipped out on 50 years earlier is awesome, and is likely to NEVER be repeated again in history.

these ships were flagships from the start, and were intended to take care of themselves in a fight, but to also allow flags to conduct entire fleets from. As a flagship, the Iowas were great, and nothing showes the flag in foriegn ports like a BB, heck, I am not sure an CVN shows as much visible power as an Iowa. We all know a CVN is the most powerful weapon on earth, but you can't SEE it, those 16" guns say "DONT MESS WITH ME" in very clear language.

I agree with Xpav, in that their usefullness is outweighed by their liability today, but we can't take away from the accomplishment these 4 ships made to History, AND to the safety and security of the United States over 50 years. If only 1 in 100 USN ships would perform to the standard the Iowa class set, we would be very fortunate indeed.

I have a reference book that lists some Iowa data, as of 1984 there were still 21 brand new 16" rifles for the Iowa ships in storage, and almost 1 year of combat stores for the guns in storage. thats a LOT of shells! IF we ever needed to bring them out.. there are STILL repair parts for them in storage!

Only real combat value I could see , is if you wished to raid a port.. float the BB into port and let it raise pure, unholy hell! lol. It would be magnificent! image 2 Iowas floating in Vladivostock in 2003! all those Kara's, Sverdlovs, and Kirovs.. unable to do more than reply with puny 5" guns.. their SSM's worthless at extreme close range. What a way to go out! lol.

a Big SALUTE to the 4 old gals.. possibly the best "Bang for the buck" the USN has ever gotten from a class of ships. Glad they are memorials, and not razor blades, they deserved to be respectfully retired and not cut up.

_____________________________

Robert
Fly, die.. rinse and repeat

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 19

Naval Gunfire Support - 1/8/2003 7:57:57 PM

tanjman

Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Snip...
The 16" guns on the Iowa are too short ranged for ship to ship combat. A rapid-fire 5" gun makes for better fire support (hell, a platoon of mortars makes for better fire support).

So, guns aside. We have the missile firepower of a destroyer. To utilize this ship with massive operating costs (compared to lighter units), we need to escort it with destroyers and cruisers? Doesn't it make more sense to have, say, another couple destroyers for the price of one old battleship that's expensive to man?

And with the trashed upper works goes all the radios, radars, and bits of electronics to fight today's naval battles.

Exactly. The things aren't worth the cost. There is nothing useful on the BBs that can't be done nowadays better by smaller and cheaper ships.

Look in the dictionary under "Obsolete" and there will be a picture of a battleship. [/B][/QUOTE]

XPav,

Before you insert more of your foot in your mouth ;) I suggest you check out the United States Naval Fire Support Associaton web site at:

http://www.usnfsa.org/

You might want to read some of the articles posted there which are written by experts and not armchair generals ;)

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 20

Well I can only trust what I saw firsthand... - 1/8/2003 11:48:04 PM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

XPAV- Our speed gage in CIC read 39.8 kts and we maintained this top speed around approx 20 minutes.

Keep in mind that this was a SPEED TRIAL.

The captain ordered engineering to pull all the stops and get every knot of speed out of the 8 boilers. They were pushed beyond normal SOP and we never did it again.

Our typical max speed was 32-34 knots. And we rarely did that because at that speed we sucked fuel like like my ex drained my bank account.

RAWINK- You hit the nail on the head. We were a PR ship. Diplomats were always on board and we were always showing the flag. The rest of you were right. Firepower to $$ you could do better with more modern smaller ships.

But we still kicked butt!

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 21

Re: Naval Gunfire Support - 1/9/2003 1:14:32 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]XPav,

Before you insert more of your foot in your mouth ;) I suggest you check out the United States Naval Fire Support Associaton web site at:

http://www.usnfsa.org/

You might want to read some of the articles posted there which are written by experts and not armchair generals ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

USNFSA? Hah! HAH! I tell you. Their ideas are based off pipe dreams tech and require a willful suspension of disbelief!

I may be an armchair colonel, but I've read many, many threads on sci.military.naval where the battleship comes up, and many people that DO this stuff for a living are pretty **** tired of pointing out that the BBs are useless.

You want fire support for troops? A modern rapid firing 5-inch gun is a better idea. The forthcoming DD(X) family of ships will have, among its many gizmos, 2 rapid-fire 155mm guns firing 12 rounds per minute (http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/ags.htm).

You don't need 16" guns to support troops.

update: here's a nice usenet post detailing just how full of brown organic matter USNFA is.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 22

- 1/9/2003 1:18:09 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

The last great naval battle occured May 31-June 1, 1916.

It was called the Battle of Skagerrak.

Now that was a collection of ships to behold!

Now we talk about 1 Battleship like it is a big thing :rolleyes:

For those interested heres the [URL=http://www.navwar.freeserve.co.uk/JUTPACK.htm]Order of Battle[/URL] from the mother of all slugfests!

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 23

Re: Well I can only trust what I saw firsthand... - 1/9/2003 1:19:07 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by m0ngoose
[B]XPAV- Our speed gage in CIC read 39.8 kts and we maintained this top speed around approx 20 minutes.

Keep in mind that this was a SPEED TRIAL.

Aren't you supposed to preface that with "This ain't no ..." ?

If you've got a source saying you went 40 knots, well, can I have it so I tell lots of people that they're wrong? :D Until then, I'm still chalking this up as a sea story.

quote:

RAWINK- You hit the nail on the head. We were a PR ship. Diplomats were always on board and we were always showing the flag. The rest of you were right. Firepower to $$ you could do better with more modern smaller ships.

But we still kicked butt! [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed! Big guns guns are indeed, rather more scary to look at than a VLS. :D

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 24

- 1/9/2003 1:23:29 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]The last great naval battle occured May 31-June 1, 1916.

It was called the Battle of Skagerrak.

Now that was a collection of ships to behold!

Now we talk about 1 Battleship like it is a big thing :rolleyes:

For those interested heres the [URL=http://www.navwar.freeserve.co.uk/JUTPACK.htm]Order of Battle[/URL] from the mother of all slugfests! [/B][/QUOTE]

I always thought it was called the Battle of Jutland, and no, I think the last great naval battle occured at [URL=http://www.combinedfleet.com/btl_sur.htm]Surigao Strait[/URL]... (You've got more ships though....)

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 25

- 1/9/2003 2:29:06 AM

rawink

Posts: 194
Joined: 4/30/2002
From: Tallahassee, FL
Status: offline

as far as speed goes. the fastest I have "Seen" published for the Iowa's were 30-32 knts. however, it has been listed that each ship attainted well over 35 knts after their 80's reactivations. Of course the true top speed of ships, aircraft and the like and not made public due to the fact these are warships.

Norman Polmars "Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet" listed each Iowa as being capable of well of 35 knots each.

as an aside, my best friend served on the R.K. Turner (CG20) during the gulf war. He has told me several times ,he loves the story, that while in the southern gulf, he was following a Nimtz class CVN. the CVN was ordered north, at all possible speed.

the R.K. Turner was capable of around 32knots.. and he says the CVN just tossed up a rooster tail and LEFT them behind. Within an hour you couldnt even see the ship anymore. The CVN must have been making well over 43-45 knots!

I questioned him the fact that the CVN couldnt have go that fast, he just laughed at me. He asked with the stats were for the Standard SM's that he was a FCO for.. I read them to him, and he laughed again. He then went on to remind me, not to believe everything you see written.. since the data these books use, is the data the military gives out publically.. and things like weapons ranges, and speeds, as well as armor and the like are almost always underated for the public.

I think an Iowa doing nearly 39 knots is a tough pill to swallow.. but, I wont say it isnt possible, especially if the guy serving on the ship says it happened.

_____________________________

Robert
Fly, die.. rinse and repeat

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 26

Re: Re: Well I can only trust what I saw firsthand... - 1/9/2003 2:39:04 AM

mbatch729

Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]
If you've got a source saying you went 40 knots, well, can I have it so I tell lots of people that they're wrong? :D Until then, I'm still chalking this up as a sea story.
[/B][/QUOTE]

As the story starts, "This is a no-sh*tter!" 32-34 knots was max operational speed. In an emergency, or speed trial, the Iowa class could make around 40 knots. Be there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

In UV terms, running that over 15-20 minutes would put about 20 system damage on the ship. Most ships, on speed trials, exceed their published maximum speed.

As for the 60+ knot carriers, well some information is still classified. ;-) But on the day Turret Two exploded, a carrier(I forget the name) was the first ship to arrive and render assistance. Rooster tail well above the flight deck. Our fire control radar didn't track her, so we didn't get an exact speed reading, but it was over 50 knots.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 27

- 1/9/2003 2:42:59 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I always thought it was called the Battle of Jutland[/QUOTE]

As with all great debates, the winner gets to name it. While the British claim the victory, at a tactical level they engaged a smaller force with far greater numbers and firepower yet failed to inflict greater losses. In my book, thats a loss. The fact that the politicians stepped into the mix and prevented the Germans from ever sailing forth on the chance they might loose does not make for a British victory as they would claim :rolleyes:

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 28

carrier speeds - 1/9/2003 2:48:52 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Yeah, I can confirm that. All the nuke ships can move so fast it makes you sick.

And so can surfaced nuke subs. We were along side one of the LA attack subs doing about 28 kts and it accelerated and LEFT us behind! One of the bridge officers said they can do about 45 kts on the surface (in an important situation) but that particular instance was between 35-40 kts.

Yeah, you see all kinds of crazy stuff that never gets published...

:cool:

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 29

- 1/9/2003 2:59:12 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

You know, the nuke carriers making 40+ kts, I can buy. Long ship, lots of power, off they go.

The BBs, with 40 year old machinery, I can't. Now, since I don't know the right questions to ask, but can you go over to sci.military.naval, post your story, and ask for people to poke holes in it? :D

There's a guy out there now who is claming in the "fastest ships in other navies" thread where USS Edson (DD946) went 50kts, but his story has some holes.

If you've got a 40-kt BB, well, that'd at least be interesting. :D

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to rlc27)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>