| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Admiral
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 391
|
|
|
Post subject: Illustrious
|
 |
|
How about an Illustrious class CV for the Brits? She'd probably only have two squadron capacity. (Two squadrons b/c that class carried less than Ark Royal so two). But that would be the Yamato of carriers since the class had an armored flight deck. Plus, it would be useful to be the Victorious in a Bismark what if scenario.
_________________
"Si vis pacem parabellum" - If you want peace, prepare for war
GOLD Rated Trader at +32
 |
|
 Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:27 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 944
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Illustrious
|
|
|
| RaySpruance wrote: | | How about an Illustrious class CV for the Brits? |
Well, we don't have any confirmation of it, but I would say it's 99% sure we'll get one of them in Set II. |
|
| Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:22 pm |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5706
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
 
'After reading that reply, I just had to look it up.'
BANZAI!
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:01 am |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2967
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Richard said "Pagoda", which to me specifically says "Fuso/Yamashiro"--Mutsu/Nagato had more conventional conning-tower structures IIRC, as did Ise/Hyuga (again, IIRC).
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:41 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 96
|
|
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:08 pm |
|
|
Grey Wolf
Posts: 416
|
|
|
Post subject: Pagoda Masts
|
|
|
@ EssexSims - Your link isn't working for me - I think it's that unused part of an image tag at the end of the link. Anyway, just in case anyone wants these, here are a couple of pictures displaying the Nagato and Ise classes' pagoda masts that Essex Sims described (they do indeed have them, and I personally expecting and hoping for the Nagato class, although I wouldn't be too disappointed with the Fuso class either I guess):
And here's the Fuso class too:
_________________
AAM
BS 48/48 (109)
S2 45/45 (139)
CS 45/45 (114)
DD 44/45 (89)
RS 45/45 (201)
39 60/60 (217)
NA 60/60 (161)
EF 60/60 (184)
EW 00/50 (00)
WaS
S1 64/64 (249)
TF 60/60 (174)
FS 40/40 (100) |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:35 pm |
|
|
Sinker of Battleships
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the  . I don't know much about the Nagato, could it go head-to-head with the Washington or Tennesee?
_________________
WAS 64/64
39-45 36/60
Last edited by Sink the Bismark on Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:37 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Fixed the link
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:37 pm |
|
|
Grey Wolf
Posts: 416
|
|
|
Post subject: Nagato and Fuso
|
|
|
The Nagato class could definitely take on the Tennessee or Nelson classes; however, I have my doubts about them being able to stand up to the North Carolina Class (although both the Nagato and her sister Mutsu were armed with 16" barrels, their armour, fire control systems, etc, would have been inferior to newer US BBs). The Fuso, however, would probably not stand much more of a chance than the Kongo class - they would basically be slower and would have slightly higher armour and weaponry ratings. Here is a comparison of the RL stats for the Kongo, Fuso, and Nagato classes:
Armament:
Kongo:
8 × 356mm (4×II-/45)
14 × 152mm (14×I-/50)
8 × 127mm (4×II-/40)
20 × 25mm (10×II)
Fuso:
12 × 356mm (6×II-/45-m1908)
14 × 152mm (14×I-/50-m1908)
8 × 127mm (4×II-/40-m1928)
20 × 20mm (10×II)
Nagato:
8 × 409mm (4×II-/45-m1914)
18 × 140mm (18×I-/50-m1914)
8 × 127mm (4×II-/40)
20 × 25mm (10×II)
Here is the info for their main US competitor in the current WaS set; the Tennessee class:
12 × 356mm (4×III-/50)
14 × 127mm (-/51)
4 × 76mm (-/50)
2 × TT 533mm
All info taken directly from Warships of World War II - the standard place to warship info on the internet now that Warships of the World is effectively shut down.
http://warships.web4u.cz/staty.php?language=E
Updated version of site:
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/staty.php?language=E
I think I'll post an armour comparison as well in just a few minutes, for convenience sake.
EDIT - Here it is:
Kongo:
W/L belt 75-200mm, barbettes 250mm, turret 230mm, control tower 250mm, deck 35-55mm
Fuso:
W/L belt 100-300mm, Casemates 150mm, Turret 200-300mm, Barbetes 200-300mm, Control tower 300mm, Rear control tower 150mm, Deck 30-75mm
Nagato:
W/L belt 89-305mm, Casemates 150mm, Barbetes 292mm, Control tower 356mm, Deck 119-185mm, Turrets 203-356mm
_________________
AAM
BS 48/48 (109)
S2 45/45 (139)
CS 45/45 (114)
DD 44/45 (89)
RS 45/45 (201)
39 60/60 (217)
NA 60/60 (161)
EF 60/60 (184)
EW 00/50 (00)
WaS
S1 64/64 (249)
TF 60/60 (174)
FS 40/40 (100) |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:44 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 96
|
|
|
Post subject: Nagato vs. Tennessee
|
|
|
I'd agree. The Nagato's had 16" guns and were faster than the Tennessee's. Tennessee had 14" guns and thicker armor. I'd say they were fairly even with a slight edge to the bigger guns.
I don't think Nagato could have stood up to the newer American BB's. N. Carolina's, S. Dakota's, or Iowa's. |
|
| Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:32 pm |
|
|
Admiral
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 391
|
|
|
Post subject: British Atlanta
|
|
|
The British developed an AA Light Cruiser: The HMS Dido. While not as effective at AA than the Atlanta, nor the hitting power of surface attacks, she still was a solidly designed vessel. It would give the Brits a solid AA ship to defend Ark Royal or Illustrious...
_________________
"Si vis pacem parabellum" - If you want peace, prepare for war
GOLD Rated Trader at +32
|
|
| Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:59 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 944
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: British Atlanta
|
|
|
| RaySpruance wrote: | | The British developed an AA Light Cruiser: The HMS Dido. While not as effective at AA than the Atlanta, nor the hitting power of surface attacks, she still was a solidly designed vessel. It would give the Brits a solid AA ship to defend Ark Royal or Illustrious... |
Yeah I didn't include Dido in my Set II conjecture, and now I think maybe I should have. There are a lot of UK light cruisers that need to be included, I think I missed the boat there.
One book I was reading recently was kind of Anglo-centric and seemed to indicate Dido was very effective, and also mentioned an earlier "C-class" AA cruiser conversion which it suggested was less good but still useful. But it didn't have any stats or details to back it up. Reading previous posts the impression I get from this board is that UK AA was inherently limited compared to US because the US 5" guns were so much more effective... |
|
| Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:08 pm |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2967
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Not quite--there were two versions of the Dido design: a straight CL (all but two), and a CLAA (which was only Scylla and Charybdis, IIRC).
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:57 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 96
|
|
|
Post subject: Dido's
|
|
|
| So pity the Stuka "caught between the Scylla and Charybdis" |
|
| Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:17 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 15
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Aquarius wrote: | After reading that reply, I just had to look it up.
Good God!!
 |
_________________
 |
|
| Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:54 am |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
IJN Fuso 1941
Points: 44
Speed 2
Main: 14/14/13/12
sec: 6/5/5
AA:7
Armor 8/ Vital 13/ HP 5
SA:
Extended Range 4
Slow 1
Bristling with guns
overlapping fire-- this unit can make a second attack with its main guns against a ship it has not fired on. 6's do not count as two hits
IJN Nagato
Year: 1941
Points: 55
Speed 2
Main: 17/16/15/14
Sec: 6/5/5
AA:8
Armor:8/ Vital Armor:14/ HP:5
SA:
Extended Range 4
Slow 1
Torpedo defense 1
Radio Spotter-- if a friendly surface ship is within two hexes of an emeny ship, this unit rolls 1 extra attack dice against that enemy unit.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
 |
|
| Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:30 pm |
|
|
Moderator (here to help you!)
Supreme AHF Trader
Posts: 2128
|
|
|
| Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:05 pm |
|
|
Straight-Shooter
Posts: 2067
|
|
|
| Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:42 am |
|
|
Posts: 397
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| The North Carolina class were designed under the late treaty limitations of 35K tons and 16" main armament. The class was intended to be a break from traditinal USN BB's (slow, heavy armor, big guns) to a faster ship with heavy armor. The designers found that they could not do a useful number of 16" guns on a fast hull with heavy armor and stay within 35K tons. So the initial design was for three quad 14" turrets. As a basis for design the ships main battery range and penetration was used in designing the armor scheme. Late in the process a political event allowed the main battery to be increased 16" but the armor could not be changed. All this means that the North Carolina class would own the older IJN battleships with 14" guns but I think at longer range a Nagato or Yamato would be a far different proposition. If you can find Friedman's series on US design history there is a huge amount on all this. |
|
| Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| zaarin7 wrote: | | The class was intended to be a break from traditinal USN BB's (slow, heavy armor, big guns) to a faster ship with heavy armor. The designers found that they could not do a useful number of 16" guns on a fast hull with heavy armor and stay within 35K tons. |
That's not exactly true (or at least the way it's phrased is a bit misleading). The North Carolina wasn't initially designed with 14" guns and armored against 14" shellfire because of technical limitations. She was to have 14" guns because the U.S. and the U.K agreed to in the Second London Naval Treaty. However, because Japan refused to be a party to the treaty, it contained an "escalator clause". The escalator clause allowed guns of up to 16" if Japan refused to agree to a 14" limitation.
North Carolina was designed as a 14" battleship to comply with the treaty. The U.S. invoked the escalator clause only after most of the design work on the North Carolina class was done. They were able to equip her with triple 16" turrets in lieu of the quad 14" turrets she was originally designed for (the two turrets were about the same size) but it was too late to equip her with armor capable of resisting 16" shellfire. They had another year and a half to design the South Dakota class, and were able to squeeze in armor against 16" shells (though not the new "super-heavy" Mark 8 2,700 lb projectile) on a treaty displacement of 35,000 tons. |
|
| Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
|
