PDA

View Full Version : Battleship battles!



lbhskier37
04-29-2004, 12:56 PM
Who is gonna be the first to write a fantasy mission where the Yamamoto meets the Wisconsin? Come to think of it, that would be a good idea for a development updatehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

lbhskier37
04-29-2004, 12:56 PM
Who is gonna be the first to write a fantasy mission where the Yamamoto meets the Wisconsin? Come to think of it, that would be a good idea for a development updatehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

heywooood
04-29-2004, 01:23 PM
hey Ub a skier -

Isn't this PF thinger a flight sim? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif.....

When it becomes a battleship sim I will be right there with ya.

Capt._Tenneal
04-29-2004, 01:31 PM
Well, if it's mano-a-mano between the USS Wisconsin vs. Admiral Yamamoto my money's on the battleship.

Rhavin_
04-29-2004, 01:36 PM
I know I'll be making a mission with a BB fight. If PF is tacked on to FB than I'll be creating a "What if" campaign where the Russo-Japanese War is pushed back forty years. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Tsushima '44!
Even if it isn't, I'd just love to see the Yamato shelling shore positions.

lbhskier37
04-29-2004, 01:48 PM
OOPS yamato. Them damn names are too close. Of course the battleship fight would also have to include an epic stuggle for air superiourity above them in order for someone to get torpedo bombers through.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

heywooood
04-29-2004, 02:43 PM
Yep - I was just ribbin' ya.

I hope the big boats are included too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Flakwalker
04-29-2004, 04:23 PM
In a battleship encounter, the Yamato have big posibilities to survive the encounter. Personally I think that both the Missouri and South Dakota can`t sunk it even fighting both against it.
Both the Yamato and Musashi proof that was able to take a lot of punishment.

lbhskier37
04-29-2004, 04:40 PM
The Wisconsin could, simply because it's named after the greatest state in the country http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Aside from that, didn't the Iowa class ships have a more advanced firecontrol system than the Japanese giants, in addition to being faster? I dont know if they will be modeled that closely, but if that is true, the Wisconsin should be able to get the other ship ranged and start hitting it sooner.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Latico
04-29-2004, 04:56 PM
Historically though, The Yamato never got to use her big 18 inch guns before it was sunk.

The US ships used radar fire control for it's guns. I'm not sure what system the IJN used.

Korolov
04-29-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
The US ships used radar fire control for it's guns. I'm not sure what system the IJN used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had somebody swim out to the opposing battleship and asked if they hit.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Capt._Tenneal
04-29-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
Historically though, The Yamato never got to use her big 18 inch guns before it was sunk.

The US ships used radar fire control for it's guns. I'm not sure what system the IJN used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably ranging fire. Fire several rounds then adjust for distance. Plus the Japanese had the Long Lance torpedo, so in some cases they didn't even need to use the guns as the principal ship-to-ship weapon.

ElAurens
04-29-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:

Plus the Japanese had the Long Lance torpedo, so in some cases they didn't even need to use the guns as the principal ship-to-ship weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the USS North Carolina took a direct hit from a Japanese torpedo under her number 2 turret. she increased speed and simply left the Japanese sub behind... US battleships had very advanced armor protection. The Iowa class were designed to take on the Yamato's 18 inch guns and survive... The Wisconsin (or any Iowa class) would simply dance around the Yamato and shell it into oblivion.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Snow_Wolf_
04-29-2004, 07:31 PM
lol you guys and your old Big gun ships. I am just going to use this version of the Yamato hull

Shinano class
http://www.combinedfleet.com/shinan01.jpg

too bad the real one got sunk by a torpedo

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif
"Master of Speed without getting a Ticket"

Dr_fuzz
04-29-2004, 08:24 PM
Speed a'int an issue unless its a really big difference in the margin. Battleships tend dance about as well as an elephant on jungle juice.
The battle of Jutland showed that the ability to suck up damage (of which both the Yamato and Musashi were good at........not that it helped them much in the end) more than compensated for a lower speed. In a straight BB fight my guess was that the Yamato class would come out on top.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Rhavin_
04-29-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The battle of Jutland showed that the ability to suck up damage (of which both the Yamato and Musashi were good at........not that it helped them much in the end) more than compensated for a lower speed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aren't kidding, just ask the crews on the HMS Queen Mary, HMS Indefatigable, and HMS Invincible. Both the QM and the Indefatigable blew up after only 5 hits from German battlecruisers! That's gotta put a serious damper on your battleplans! Vice Admiral Sir David Beatty turned to his flag captain after the QM and Indefatigable blew up just minutes apart.

"Chatfield," Beatty snapped "there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

Evil_Goaten02
04-29-2004, 10:43 PM
Well, I can definitely see where you are coming from Dr_fuzz, but i believe that the Iowa class would come out on top. Their guns may have been smaller (16 inches is still huge, its like hurling a volkswagen beetle through the air), but our fire control was better (radar and such things) also, in regards to speed advantage the Iowas had a good edge. The Yamato class had a top speed of roughly between 25 and 27 Knots, The Iowas had a top speed roughly between 32 and 35 knots (they were not called fast battleships for nothing). Jutland is not quite an adequate comparison becuase we had 15 inch guns being guided by the grand, "infallable" mark 1 eye ball, not radar. The gunnery methods for training were also at fault, particularly with the British, they used a system that depended upon an opponent going directly toward or away from them (they thought their fleet so big and intimidating all the fights would be them chasing their enemies). Also, both sides lacked adequate gunnery training, (hit rates were something around 5% on average) and individual initiative on the average was non existent. An example of how effective U.S. radar fire control was, in night fighting during the Battle of Guadalcanal, the North Caroline class battleship Washington "locked" onto the battleship Kirishima with its radar and nailed her with nine 16 inch and forty 5 inch shells in less then 7 minutes. Needless to say she sunk shortly afterwards. To give you an idea of the punishment they could take, during that same engagement, the battleship South Dakota (lead ship of its class) took forty-two large caliber hits from the BB Kirishima and two heavy cruisers but continued to steam at full speed. Guaranteed, these arent the Iowa class battleships but one can probably safely assume that since these ships were designed and built several years before the Iowas all the equipment, with the exception of the armament (all late U.S. BBs had basically the same big guns) got better and thus would be more effective (improvements in armor protection also should be taken into account). Likewise the Kirishima was no Yamato class, but its still the only adequate comparison to use.
All my info im getting is from the books "Eagle Against the Sun, the American War with Japan" and "Sailors and Naval Combat in the Twentieth Centure At War at Sea", both by Ronald H. Spector.

james8325
04-29-2004, 10:48 PM
ill have to put my vote on the yamato. everything about it is bigger. my only question is why when the yamato was attacked by aircraft, none of the planes were shot down by its many anti-aircraft guns. Were the guns not manned, or were they just terribly inaccurate?

Evil_Goaten02
04-29-2004, 10:49 PM
lol, sorry for typing errors and bad grammar, usually im better than that but its kinda late over here and i havent had much experience in posting.

Evil_Goaten02
04-29-2004, 11:40 PM
When the Yamato was sunk, she was being attacked by almost three hundred aircraft. Not only did the giant not have any air cover (it was all being used for the sake of kamikaze attacks) but its gunners were only half-trained and made poor use of the ship's large antiaircraft battery.
Once again, this information was taken from Ronald H. Spector's Eagle Against the Sun.

Nimits
04-29-2004, 11:41 PM
I'll take the Iowa any day. Better fire control and better compartmentalization will beat bigger guns and thicker armor most any day (as Jutland and Dogger's bank showed).

Flakwalker
04-29-2004, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by james8325:
my only question is why when the yamato was attacked by aircraft, none of the planes were shot down by its many anti-aircraft guns. Were the guns not manned, or were they just terribly inaccurate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they fired of course, there is photos on where you can notice smoke created by the firing guns, the problem is, if you check the game, is not easy to hit an aircraft, specially if it is diving just over you.
You can also notice that the main turrets where pointing at a side, maybe using the monstruous 460mm flak shell against the TBF.

Flakwalker
04-29-2004, 11:47 PM
Also, I forgot, the Yamato start moving at high speed, a factor that can reduce AA precision.

Giganoni
04-30-2004, 02:42 AM
Evil_Goaten you forgot to mention that the Kirishima was equipped with not armor piercing shells, but shells designed for ground pounding and blowing up aircraft (it was going to attack Henderson field. Such shells would hardly test the armor of a battleship. The radar of the American ships were still poor (this early in the war), at night the radar didn't tell you who was friend or foe, whats an island and is hampered in rough weather.

Also the Washington would be at the bottom of the sea but, it got extremely lucky that the Japanese destroyers were trigger happy and launched their long lances at bad angles, missing the whole time.

Ruy Horta
04-30-2004, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rhavin_:
I know _I'll_ be making a mission with a BB fight. If PF is tacked on to FB than I'll be creating a "What if" campaign where the Russo-Japanese War is pushed back forty years. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif Tsushima '44!
Even if it isn't, I'd just love to see the Yamato shelling shore positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is actually what the Japanese wanted all along. Get to Americans to attack them with a combined fleet, snip at them while they were en route (fleet subs etc) and finally engage them with their own combined fleet - first at extended range and finishing up close in with the battleships.

Tsu-Shima 42, 43 or even 44 is an apt scenario.

Also it would have been the only way to force a decisive outcome in favor of the Japanese.

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
04-30-2004, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rhavin_:
You aren't kidding, just ask the crews on the HMS Queen Mary, HMS Indefatigable, and HMS Invincible. Both the QM and the Indefatigable blew up after only 5 hits from German battlecruisers! That's gotta put a serious damper on your battleplans! Vice Admiral Sir David Beatty turned to his flag captain after the QM and Indefatigable blew up just minutes apart.

"Chatfield," Beatty snapped "there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed Beatty was close to the truth, there was something wrong with the Battlecruiser concept in general and even more wrong with British damage control.

Battlecruisers are effective against cruisers and anything lighter, against other Battlecruisers and certainly Battleships their light armor protection is a handicap.

The British had poor damage control, especially protection against flash fire.

The German WW1 Battlecruisers had better armor AND superior damage control albeit at the cost of speed. If I learned something from my Naval reading to date it's the importance of damage control and armor protection.

Compare the carrier battles between the USN and IJN, more then once their outcome was decided by superior damage control.

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
04-30-2004, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Also the Washington would be at the bottom of the sea but, it got extremely lucky that the Japanese destroyers were trigger happy and launched their long lances at bad angles, missing the whole time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hopefully there is a way to model superior Japanese night fighting skills (up to '43 at least) and the advantage of having the long lance torpedo.

Of course IL2/FB/AEP/PF isn't a naval series, but somehow the Pacific theatre demands extra attention when it comes to naval matters, not limited to carrier landings...

Ruy Horta

Vipez-
04-30-2004, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
Historically though, The Yamato never got to use her big 18 inch guns before it was sunk.

The US ships used radar fire control for it's guns. I'm not sure what system the IJN used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true.. Yamato did use her big guns, for example when She took part in the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June and the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1943. During the latter action, she was attacked several times by U.S. Navy aircraft, and fired her big guns in an engagement with U.S. escort carriers and destroyers off the island of Samar...


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

Evil_Goaten02
04-30-2004, 02:58 PM
Giganoni, thanks for bringing that information to light but are you sure its 100% accurate for it was not mentioned in my book. The author also exhaustively researches the subject before he writes and im almost certain he wouldnt have left out such an important detail. I do realize though that that particular Japanese task force was there to bombard U.S. Marine positions on Guadalcanal and thus would have been armed with High Explosive shells, but this does not mean that they would automatically not have Armor Piercing shells. That would be, frankly, quite stupid of the command structure (and the japanese were by all means, NOT stupid) but anything could happen I suppose.

In reference to the torpedo comment, it is true that long lance torpedoes were quite deadly, and that our radar wasnt that good at the time. However, the debate was not about an engagement between an Iowa class BB and a Japanese fleet, but between an Iowa class BB and a Yamato Class BB, and BB's, of any type, do not have torpedoes (for whatever reason). Also, you are completely correct about the radar, but this agrees with what i was saying about the Iowas being more effective than these older BB's due to their more modern radar suites. (we were saying the same thing here, just in different ways)

ploughman
04-30-2004, 05:17 PM
Battleships did have torp tubes, the German battleship Bismarck was sunk by one (amongst other things) and by that I do not mean the Swordfish launced torp that struck and jammed the rudder.
As for Jap Gunnery and American Gunnery, the big battle of which we speak was fought at night, good for the radar ranging Americans (god love you,). Had the same battle been fought during the day only a near miss would have been required to wreck the Allies's sensitive radar apparatus. And then....badabooom

sugaki
04-30-2004, 05:21 PM
Yamato is 100x cooler than the Iowa ...bigger guns, more armor ...and the width of that thing makes it look so awesome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That being said, I think the Iowa would beat the Yamato, but it'd really depend more on the scenario. The 18" shells on the Yamato were designed to strike ships underneath the waterline, and wasn't very reliable. Armor was good, but Iowa's a newer battleship, with better fire control, as previously mentioned.

Still, I have a feeling one direct hit with an 18" shell from the Yamato would put the Iowa in serious trouble...

And yes, Yamato did sink an escort carrier, I believe the only carrier ever to be sunk by a battleship (at least in Pacific). Forgot the name of the carrier.

-Aki

Evil_Goaten02
04-30-2004, 05:48 PM
Ahh, so you are correct (i just went and looked it up) the battleship HMS Rodney was armed with 2 24" torpedo tubes, my mistake. I should have further quantified my statement, neither the Yamato class, nor Iowas possess torpedo tubes. Also, i would say are quite correct about a near miss disabling our radar, given the massiveness of an 18" shell and the sensitivity of the equipment back then. However, the question is, how long will it take for that near miss, and afterwards the range will already have been found, so the truly hard/technical work is done and only minor corrections need to be performed. Dont get me wrong though, i do not think either battleship would dominate the battle, it would definitely be a h*lluva fight, but i do think that do to its superior speed and radar the Iowas would come out on top. It would depend on who got the first hits, and the odds point to the Iowas, unless the Japanese got lucky.

ploughman
04-30-2004, 05:55 PM
Hamlet,

Astonished though he was said t'were it a battleship sim, I coud use radar guided projectiles.

But tis'not.

So I shall have to use air power, instead.

And though, he did.

And we swam home.

tenmmike
04-30-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Yamato is 100x cooler than the Iowa ...bigger guns, more armor ...and the width of that thing makes it look so awesome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That being said, I think the Iowa would beat the Yamato, but it'd really depend more on the scenario. The 18" shells on the Yamato were designed to strike ships underneath the waterline, and wasn't very reliable. Armor was good, but Iowa's a newer battleship, with better fire control, as previously mentioned.

Still, I have a feeling one direct hit with an 18" shell from the Yamato would put the Iowa in serious trouble...

And yes, Yamato did sink an escort carrier, I believe the only carrier ever to be sunk by a battleship (at least in Pacific). Forgot the name of the carrier.

-Aki<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you are thinking of the GAMBIER BAY. (cve-73) but the yamato did not sink her but it did fire on her she was sunk by either the CHIKUMA or KONGO (they were cruisers)during the battle of leyte gulf off samar

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif 84-91

ploughman
04-30-2004, 06:44 PM
The only other occasion of a flat top being nailed by shooters is the carrier HMS Glorious, destroyed by the German battle cruisers Gneisenau and Scharnhorst off Norway, 1940.

If the German sub's torpedoes had worked, we'd've lost the war. (And I mean you too, Mr American)

WereSnowleopard
04-30-2004, 09:55 PM
Snow_Wolf,

Shinano wasn't sink by single torpedo but four. also it was not full crew as not fitted with water tight doors. It was move from shipyard to near port to be fitting. Please read some history books based on it before you said something about it.

Regards
Snowleopard

Ruy Horta
04-30-2004, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
scenario. The 18" shells on the Yamato were designed to strike ships underneath the waterline, and wasn't very reliable. -Aki<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's counter to most I've reading on the subject of late battleships, that is the fact that their engagement range made their fire plunge on the decks instead of against the belt and certainly beneath the water line (high arc trajectory).

Of course if the range were relatively short its a different matter, but that's not how most of the battle would proceed (finishing off is a different matter, and even here the torpedo is more effecient).

Still I'd love to learn more about this subject.

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
05-01-2004, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
The only other occasion of a flat top being nailed by shooters is the carrier HMS Glorious, destroyed by the German battle cruisers Gneisenau and Scharnhorst off Norway, 1940.

If the German sub's torpedoes had worked, we'd've lost the war. (And I mean you too, Mr American)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we ignore the last remark (hopefully) there is a point to the German "Torpedo crisis", since counter to common knowledge there was a real problem during the first phase of the war, certainly saving the RN from some nasty shock during the early campaign (Norway for instance).

Its ironic that perhaps the only german arm with war winning potential against Britain - the U-Boot fleet - started the war with an impotent weapon. All the more amazing since their earlier success in WW1.

I do not like "if-scenarios", but I am certain that an already doubtful Britain (speaking of the darkest days of 1940 - pre-Battle of Britain) would have been more pliable if the RN had suffered the losses they would have IF the german torpedo had worked as it should, especially during the Norwegian campaign.

If...if...if...

Luckily they did not.

Ruy Horta

RAAFVirtSqn
05-01-2004, 12:56 AM
Mate this is a flight sim not a battle ship game. Shhesz. Great to have the carriers and all but do not view it as a battleship sim.

ploughman
05-01-2004, 04:24 AM
Quite so Rhorta. Plunging fire kills battleships, close in flat trajectory fire just knocks things off them and spoils the paint work.

When the RN finished off the Bismarck the British battleships pounded the crippled German from close range and although the Bismarck was a shambles she was still floating. The shells trajectories were too flat to penetrate the relatively thin deck armour and enter the interior of the ship. A torpedo finished her off in the end, although untill recently it was thought her crew had scuttled her.

In news more relevent to the PTO the naval bombardment prior to the Tarawa landings did not involve plunging fire and while the effect was impressive, the deeply dug in defenders were largely unmolested.

Ruy Horta
05-01-2004, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAFVirtSqn:
Mate this is a flight sim not a battle ship game. Shhesz. Great to have the carriers and all but do not view it as a battleship sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but if old games like Great Naval Battles-series, Task Force 42 and even to some extend Pacific Air War could model naval engagements with their limited computing power, I'd expect today's machines to manage at least the same level of naval simulation ON THE SIDE.

Again the IL2/PF-team would do well to look carefully at these golden oldies and if need be "copy" some of their relatively primitive coding.

IF PF were only about furballing fighters I'd agree 100% with your statement, but since much of the core game could revolve around anti-shipping sorties it would pay if these ships behaved like ships, at least to the extend of 5 year old naval games.

If ship vs ship routines would benefit as well, all the better.

A sub that doesn't (try to) dive when attacked from the air isn't a sub, but a target float.

PF will inherit all that is great of the previous series, but going those extra miles will set it apart - surpassing the original.

I believe Luthier is committed, so lets leave it at that.

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
05-01-2004, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
interior of the ship. A torpedo finished her off in the end, although untill recently it was thought her crew had scuttled her.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for supporting the "plunging fire" argument. Now I feel slightly guilty, but I thought that even today after close underwater surveillance it still wasn't clear what finished the Bismarck - the scuttling or a torpedo. If my memory serves me right the "bottom impact" damage made a final analysis difficult to impossible.

Every now and then I get a Naval itch...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Ruy Horta

ploughman
05-01-2004, 05:10 AM
I saw a doco on TV about the Hood and Bismarck which involved locating and surveying the wrecks. Probably the same survey you're speaking of Ruy.

The Hood was a complete shambles with big bits of the ship littering the sea bed, the explosion (the result of plunging fire) that destroyed her had set of the forward, as well as the rear magazines.

The survey of the Bismarck showed torpedo damage that would have sunk her, I seem to recall it was fairly conclusive (doesn't mean the crew hadn't already opened the seacocks though) - and some amazing damage caused by 15" shells on flat trajectories ploughing furrows in the deck armour.

Compared to the Hood though, the Bismarck was largely intact.

DStrong86
05-01-2004, 12:52 PM
Here's a picture I found on the US Navy website awhile back, but I don't remember which battleship it is. An aerial photo showing all guns firing ,,, look at the large DEPRESSION of the OCEAN from the concussion of the blasts.

I doubt that any naval sim has ever modeled that effect.

The picture posted is smaller than original

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dstrong86/detail?.dir=/88c9&.dnm=b55d.jpg

DStrong86
05-01-2004, 12:54 PM
Click on this link to album "Military" photo for IowaClass

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dstrong86/detail?.dir=/88c9&.dnm=b55d.jpg

taisto_s
05-01-2004, 01:03 PM
That photograph is stunning!

ploughman
05-01-2004, 04:27 PM
Gosh! Glad that thing's on our side.

Rudee36
05-01-2004, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Who is gonna be the first to write a fantasy mission where the Yamamoto meets the Wisconsin? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yamamoto was an Admiral, not a plane.

05-01-2004, 08:37 PM
You do not have to look very far to create a Historical what if for the Battle Ship Yamato, in Pacific fighters.
The Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines, the Japanese commader of the Yamato thought he was up against the Main body of the American fleet, but he was not!
The destroyers and PT boats that where Suicidaly attacking his force where protecting the US invasion beach head at Leyte.

You could have the Yamato steam in and start shelling the American support carriers, invasion support ships and no Doubt Douglas McCathur as he walked ashore in the Phillipinnes!

The Japanese commander did not know their plan had worked! The Main US Naval Force force was lured away to the North by the Japanese Carriers leaving the American beach head exposed to the Big guns of the Japanese Navy!
As it was the Jap cruisers in the force started sinking and damaging American support carriers that where throwing all their aircraft at them.

The Yamato could just cruise in and start tearing the place apart with her 18 inch main guns, instead of retiring from the fight!

A historical Scenario that only requires one small change, and that is the Battle Ship Yamato changing course to attack with the cruisers instead of retiring.
You dont get much closer to an actual Historic Battle than that!

S!

[This message was edited by JG77_GK on Sat May 01 2004 at 07:54 PM.]

Ankanor
05-02-2004, 12:28 PM
Unless the dev team does sumthing to stop the AI ship behavior, the BB with the longer range of fire will win. Do not think in real life environment. think in-game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

05-02-2004, 02:08 PM
Yes I was thinking in real life, the only change required in the Mission would be a slight change to Yamatos course to attack with the cruisers instead of retire, at the Battle of Leyte.
As it was Yamatos opening Salvo landed amongst the American support carriers, her second salvo scored direct hits on an American cruiser that made a suicidal charge at Yamato from within the Leyte invasion support ships.
The cruiser stopped and dissapeared behind a smoke screen, so if Yamatos course is to South at crusing speed she ends up in the middle of a fleet of American support Carriers troop supply and tansport ships, with her Main and secondary guns pointing in all directions destroying ships at close Range.
Crikey! the Yanks had no idea how close they came to total disaster at the Leyte invasion Beach head especially when you consider the Haruna a Kongo class Battle ship was also cruising with the Yamato, at this engagement.

S!