| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject: USS Wichita
|
 |
|
I'm proposing the USS Wichita
9-8"/55 mark 15
8-5"/38 DP
5" Belt, 3"+2" deck
Proposed stats
USS Wichita 1941 15pts
MG 9/9/8/7
2nd 5/5/4/-
AA 6
5/10/3
No SA's
_________________
 |
|
 Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:29 am |
|
|
USS OKLAHOMA BB-37
Posts: 6666
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Look's right to me! I like it.
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:36 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The MG should probably be 9/8/8/6, since it is identical to San Francisco in the main battery.
Eight 127 mm guns in the secondary would make its secondary armament similar to Myoko, which would be 4/4/3, I believe.
AA 6 seems right on.
The armour and hull seem right on, too.
After reading the history, how's this for a special ability (albeit a negative one)?
FOUL WEATHER LUCK: While in a squall, this unit gets -1 on each attack die on its Gunnery and Antiair rolls.
It seems appropriate because the Wichita seems to have had horrible luck with weather.
_________________
Last edited by jfkziegler on Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:11 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
8x 50 cal mgs for AA
maybe AA5
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:15 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Right, but it also had the right 5"/38's, which were an excellent AA secondary battery, so I think drittal's right on with AA 6. Its AA is at least as good as Boise, which is AA 6.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:18 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
OK
mains 9 8 8 6
secon 5 4 4 (nearly identical to San Fran)
AA 6
5/10/3
Foul weather SA (i like it)
with foul wheater SA 12 points without 13
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:42 am |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
she commissioned with the 50 cal, by late war she had...
Armament: 3x3 8"/55, 8x1 5"/38, 4x4 40mm, 4x2 40mm, 20x1 20mm, 8x1 .50-caliber MG
Also, as commissioned her AA armament was better than San Fran/Boise, with 8-5"/38 vs the older 8-5"/25 that San Fran/Boise shipped. Still I gave the same AA as San Francisco because I couldn't justify AA7.
Also, the 5"/38 had a 5 gun broadside vs San Fran's 4 5"/25, why I bumped up secondary to same as the 6 5"/38 Laffey.
I justified the bumped up Main gun stats to reflect her better mounts, the same as Baltimore's. This mount outperformed the previous mounts and solved the dispersion problems of the previous classes. Although the mount is almost identical to Baltimore, I didn't give the same stats as Baltie because Wichita did not ship the super heavy 8" round.
_________________
Last edited by drittal on Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:44 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm with you on everything but the cost. I think the fact that it has that all important Armour 5 means that it should be cost 14 (higher than Boise) without the SA and cost 13 with the SA.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:46 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I used San Fran as a guide
She is 16
same guns and armour
has a flag and 2 SAs
14 tops.
13 with negative SA .
Cool we have agreement.
i was also looking at Zara for 13
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:50 am |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | I used San Fran as a guide
She is 16
same guns and armour
has a flag and 2 SAs
14 tops.
13 with negative SA .
Cool we have agreement.
i was also looking at Zara for 13 |
She has BETTER guns than San Fran.
| NavWeaps.com wrote: | | The Wichita (CA-45), Baltimore (CA-68) and Oregon City (CA-122) classes had greatly different mountings from previous heavy cruisers. The guns were individually sleeved and mounted further apart, allowing for better shell dispersion characteristics. |
They also trained and elevated nearly twice as fast than previous mountings. This cruiser is at the ver least equal to HMS Kent.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:57 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
9/9/8/7 then
points remain the same
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:07 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Given that NavWeapons quote, I am okay with making it 9/8/8/7.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:08 am |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Kent, Canberra, Exeter 8"
train: 8 degrees/sec max
elev: 10 degrees/sec max
gun axis 84" apart
256# APC
RoF: 3-4 rpm
San Francisco & SLC 8"
train: 3.5 degrees/sec
elev: 6 degrees/sec
gun axis 46" apart
260# APC
RoF: 3-4 rpm
Wichita & Baltimore 8"
train: 5.3 degrees/sec
Elev: 10.1 degrees/sec
gun axis 67" apart
260* APC Wichita, 335#APC Balimore
RoF: 3-4 rpm
_________________
|
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:14 am |
|
|
Posts: 1642
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| May I suggest Foul Weather Curse instead of Foul Weather Luck, since it's a negative SA? |
|
| Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:55 am |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So final stats are:
MG: 9/9/8/7
2G: 5/4/4
AA: 6
Armour: 5/10/3
SA:
FOUL WEATHER CURSE: While in a squall, this unit gets -1 on each attack die on its Gunnery and Antiair rolls.
Cost: 13
And it should be ready to roll.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:02 am |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
quick question. Is the SA a reflection of a history of foul weather actually having a negative effect on her gunnery? Or is it, as I suspect, a reflection of her histtory of finding herself in foul weather?
If it is the latter, I propose this...
Squall Magnet: If there is a squall marker in a adjacent sector to this unit at the end of the movement phase, move that squall marker into this unit's sector.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:54 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
But that would be a positive SA, the ship could just drag around her own smoke-screen.
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I had my squall rules mixed up.
but again, why the negative gunnery?
I don't know much about her history, but I'm not finding much other than a collision and grounding in a hurricane force gale in 1942. Nothing about being a poor sea boat and/or having her gunnery affected by rough seas like KGV and Scharnhorst.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:15 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm not sure of the incidents either, though I know that they did decide to considerably enlarge the hull of the next class (Baltimore) which might suggest that she was a bit top-heavy.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:30 pm |
|
|
Nerd on the Prairie
Posts: 3052
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | | I'm not sure of the incidents either, though I know that they did decide to considerably enlarge the hull of the next class (Baltimore) which might suggest that she was a bit top-heavy. |
What WWII cruiser wasn't? 
Seriously, Wichita was deemed a success by the USN. She was based on the Brooklyn class and the Clevelands and Baltimores were based on her, only they were unrestrained by the Washington Treaty.
She was USN's best prewar CA.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
