| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject: For Review - Bagley/Gridley Class
|
 |
|
Bagley/Gridley Class
->Displacement 1,590 tons standard
->Speed 38.5 knots
->Main: 4x5"/38
->Torpedoes: 16x21" TT
->AA: 4x.5"
->Armour: None that I can find any reference to
->ASW: 2x depth charge tracks
Here are some preliminary ideas on stats.
MG: 4/4/2/-
AA: 4
ASW: 3
Torps: 3/2/1/-
Armour: 2/7/2
What does everyone think?
_________________
 |
|
 Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:39 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Any thoughts?
_________________
|
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:12 am |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Torpedoes could be 3/3/2/- too.
ASW could be 2, because it carried only 14 depth charges. 3 looks ok too, but I don't remember Yahagi's number of DCs.
Main 4/4/3/- IMO. Fletcher's 4/4/3/- for 5x 5" is considered a mistake by RB.
I'm not sure about 2/7/2. Isn't it smaller than the smallest WAS destroyer?
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:27 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | Torpedoes could be 3/3/2/- too.
ASW could be 2, because it carried only 14 depth charges. 3 looks ok too, but I don't remember Yahagi's number of DCs.
Main 4/4/3/- IMO. Fletcher's 4/4/3/- for 5x 5" is considered a mistake by RB.
I'm not sure about 2/7/2. Isn't it smaller than the smallest WAS destroyer? |
I am okay with 3/3/2 torpedoes. I don't really know what to do with 16 torpedo tubes, as they are sort of unprecedented on an American destroyer.
ASW should be 3 if we follow the Gleaves class as precedent.
Mains 4/4/3 is fine with me.
Its displacement is bigger than the Samuel B. Roberts, which is hull 2 as well. Its pretty close in displacement to the Javelin, although a little smaller. Do you think it should be 2/6/2?
_________________
|
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:35 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The Bagley's (1646 t) are about the same tonnage as the J class (1690 t).
Yahagi was 16 DC's, but a cruiser is not very maneuverable to place them on top of a sub. The Kagero's only had 16 DC's but have an ASW of 5. I think ASW of 3 is fine, even 4 could be justified. These smaller DD's were better at ASW than the large ones.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:37 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | The Bagley's (1646 t) are about the same tonnage as the J class (1690 t).
Yahagi was 16 DC's, but a cruiser is not very maneuverable to place them on top of a sub. The Kagero's only had 16 DC's but have an ASW of 5. I think ASW of 3 is fine, even 4 could be justified. These smaller DD's were better at ASW than the large ones. |
Okay, so you think ASW 3 and 2/7/2?
_________________
|
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:43 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| jfkziegler wrote: | | weedsrock2 wrote: | The Bagley's (1646 t) are about the same tonnage as the J class (1690 t).
Yahagi was 16 DC's, but a cruiser is not very maneuverable to place them on top of a sub. The Kagero's only had 16 DC's but have an ASW of 5. I think ASW of 3 is fine, even 4 could be justified. These smaller DD's were better at ASW than the large ones. |
Okay, so you think ASW 3 and 2/7/2? |
Yes.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:55 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Okay, so I think we are currently at:
MG: 4/4/3
AA: 4
ASW: 3
Torps: 3/3/2
Armour: 2/7/2
Thoughts?
_________________
|
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:13 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| jfkziegler wrote: | Okay, so I think we are currently at:
MG: 4/4/3
AA: 4
ASW: 3
Torps: 3/3/2
Armour: 2/7/2
Thoughts? |
Those look okay to me. Do you have any ideas for a standard SA or for a named ship?
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:16 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't think it needs a standard special ability, because I think its torpedo scores make it exceptional even without a SA.
I have not thought about named ships yet.
_________________
|
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:18 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| jfkziegler wrote: | Okay, so I think we are currently at:
MG: 4/4/3
AA: 4
ASW: 3
Torps: 3/3/2
Armour: 2/7/2
Thoughts? |
7 points 8 with SAs
the torps are powerful
_________________
 |
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:57 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I tend to think you are correct for cost, RAEVSKI.
_________________
|
|
| Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:40 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So are we ready for a class card? No SA's. Cost 7?
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:55 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
yep
_________________
|
|
| Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:53 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
How is this?
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:02 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Looks good to me.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:29 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I am adding the named ship USS Patterson to this class. While working on the class card a lot of the names seemed very familiar to me. Sure enough, Bagley, Blue, Helm, Patterson, and Ralf Talbot all participated in the Battle of Savo Island. Out of the entire Allied fleet only the USS Patterson was 'on the ball.' The captain went to the bridge and put the ship at action stations before any other US ship and also did his best to communicate the danger to the rest of the fleet. The ship then had a solo running gun duel with Tenryu and Yubari while torpedoes from Furutaka bubbled alongside. An enemy shell knocked out two of the after turrets and the Japanese thought they had sunk her. But the crew put out the fires and Patterson turned to continue pursuit and kept firing and hit Kinugasa before they were ordered to break off the attack from the fleet commander.
Ooh rah!
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It didn't sink any cruiser though, right?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:21 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | It didn't sink any cruiser though, right? |
No, but it pounded on three of them. The only reason I didn't use "Cruiser Hunter" is the wording is wrong. There is no need to specify 'mains'. But I can switch it if you prefer.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:47 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
RAEVSKI?
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:27 am |
|
|
|
