| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Scharnhorst vs Cesare |
| Giulio Cesare |
|
32% |
[ 10 ] |
| Scharnhorst |
|
67% |
[ 21 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 31 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Thank God I have done my Duty
Posts: 387
|
|
|
Post subject: VS POLL Vol VI: Which is Better? Cesare vs Scharnhorst
|
 |
|
Okay, final round for the Axis
Which is better in an unlimited 150 pts fleet?
Scharnhorst clearly has an edge in gunnery and hull, but Cesare having TD could be the equalizing factor.
_________________
...it is good that war is so horrible, lest we grow too fond of it. -Bobby Lee
W@S BS 64/64 TF 60/60 FS 40/40 |
|
 Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
Posts: 312
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The G-Cesare having a TD1 is as non-historical as the USS Baltimore having one. The underwater protection of the older, modernized Italian BBs was not very good. It was probably not as good as the modernized Queen Elizabeth class. Yet these British BBs don't have TD1. The German BC had much better underwater protection and should have a TD1...
_________________
Darn the Torpedoes; full speed ahead!
Victory is blasting hostile ships out of the water before they blast you out of the water... |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
|
Posts: 126
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scharnhorst. Better guns all around (plus tertiaries), better AA and 1 more hull point. That's a lot to trade away for 4 points and TD 1. |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
|
Posts: 96
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I went with Scharny. I Love using it with a heavy cruiser and close escort to back up the subs. I think its a really close fight here though, and my German bias may tip the scale  |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| SJG Gamer wrote: | | The G-Cesare having a TD1 is as non-historical as the USS Baltimore having one. The underwater protection of the older, modernized Italian BBs was not very good. It was probably not as good as the modernized Queen Elizabeth class. Yet these British BBs don't have TD1. The German BC had much better underwater protection and should have a TD1... |
Indeed, indeed. Anyway, stat-wise, Scharnhorst is an all around better ship, only thing she doesn't have is TD.
_________________
 |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
|
Thank God I have done my Duty
Posts: 387
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Historically Scharny probably should have the TD
_________________
...it is good that war is so horrible, lest we grow too fond of it. -Bobby Lee
W@S BS 64/64 TF 60/60 FS 40/40 |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
|
Posts: 145
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Lobukia wrote: | | Historically Scharny probably should have the TD |
Not if you consider that TD represents historical performance against torpedo hits. |
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:44 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I like the Cesare better. It is a good unit for its cost. It makes a nice 'second BB' or escort to a large BB or CV.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:30 am |
|
|
Posts: 37
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| WarHighlander wrote: | | Lobukia wrote: | | Historically Scharny probably should have the TD |
Not if you consider that TD represents historical performance against torpedo hits. |
Scharnhorst was crippled by a 14" shell that found its way into her machinery before being torpedoed, and it still took several torpedoes to take her down. Conte di Cavour, on the other hand, sank from a single torpedo hit!
While the Scharnhorsts didn't have a great torpedo defense system, it was still better than that of the Conte di Cavour & Caio Giulio Cesare.
In game I'm not a huge fan of either of them. With theater restrictions Guilio Cesare fleets do better for me simply because the Italians have the SM.79 to deal with bigger BB's. If the axis player will have to face US fighters, though, then I'd rather play the Scharnhorst. |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:27 pm |
|
|
Posts: 145
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Johnny_Thunders wrote: | | WarHighlander wrote: | | Lobukia wrote: | | Historically Scharny probably should have the TD |
Not if you consider that TD represents historical performance against torpedo hits. |
Scharnhorst was crippled by a 14" shell that found its way into her machinery before being torpedoed, and it still took several torpedoes to take her down. Conte di Cavour, on the other hand, sank from a single torpedo hit!
While the Scharnhorsts didn't have a great torpedo defense system, it was still better than that of the Conte di Cavour & Caio Giulio Cesare.
In game I'm not a huge fan of either of them. With theater restrictions Guilio Cesare fleets do better for me simply because the Italians have the SM.79 to deal with bigger BB's. If the axis player will have to face US fighters, though, then I'd rather play the Scharnhorst. |
I'm talking about Scharnhorst and Gneisnau's performance against torpedos in 1939-1940. I'm not disputing that Giulio Cesare should not have TD. |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:57 pm |
|
|
Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves
Posts: 3058
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Scharnhorst, hands down.
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:17 pm |
|
|
|
