|
Washington's been out of the yard for how long?
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
goatface posted:Washington's been out of the yard for how long? Commissioned 15 May 1941.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:the last pilot flying the last plane I think I see our plot for this world's take on Peace on Earth
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Velius posted:I don't think the CLAA was a better target than the battleships - late war those things are absolutely devastating in shore bombardments and the fast battleships do a great job absorbing bombs for fleet CVs. The US get something like 14 fast battleships for the duration, including 4 Sodak, 4 NC, 4 Iowa, and Alaska/Guam CBs. What's the total battleship sunk tally now? Hitting those CLAAs early means less risk of losing half a wave of planes for every other ship in that fleet, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:50mm is 2 inches, which would be quite a sight. (.50 cal is 12.7mm) Battleship Liberator is a terrible anime in this timeline. Velius posted:I don't think the CLAA was a better target than the battleships - late war those things are absolutely devastating in shore bombardments and the fast battleships do a great job absorbing bombs for fleet CVs. The US get something like 14 fast battleships for the duration, including 4 Sodak, 4 NC, 4 Iowa, and Alaska/Guam CBs. What's the total battleship sunk tally now? Ah, CBs. America's experiment with battlecruisers except worse in every possible way and 10 years too late.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:50mm is 2 inches, which would be quite a sight. (.50 cal is 12.7mm) It would be a hilarious sight in War Thunder that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Two of them ! With a low muzzle velocity and 80 rounds each ! So not so much as you'd think. Hm so you're saying they'll eventually run out of bullets
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Danann posted:It would be a hilarious sight in War Thunder that's for sure. Sam Hall posted:Here's a fun one; Tupolev ANT-23 from 1931. 2 engines in a push/pull configuration, twin boom tail. The tail booms are 76mm recoilless rifles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Yay dead BB! What's next is probably to avoid losing lots more planes to killing the other. But wow, congrats on getting another Battleship kill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
50mm guns on a liberator would be like the AC130 gunship a few decades early.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, had a 75mm gun specially designed to go in the B-25. The Germans also had a flying version of their 50mm antitank gun. So it did happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Dangeresque posted:I don't know if this has been mentioned before, had a 75mm gun specially designed to go in the B-25. The Germans also had a flying version of their 50mm antitank gun. So it did happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Dangeresque posted:I don't know if this has been mentioned before, had a 75mm gun specially designed to go in the B-25. The Germans also had a flying version of their 50mm antitank gun. So it did happen. I'll take your 75mm and raise you a 355mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderger%C3%A4t_SG104_%22M%C3%BCnchhausen%22 Never got all the bugs out though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
   Its easy to forget the Dutch are still in this war.   Bringing down a Liberator.  drat, a battleship made port.  We're mostly picking off the dregs now.  Some still have troops on though.  Others are barely worth the bombs.  I'd love to see how this kind of thing is reported in the newspapers.  We bring down another battleship – and cripple the AA cruiser!   The RAF continue to supply me with training opportunities.   Another good day! Although you can see the damage that AA cruiser has been doing!  Glug.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Seems like a rip-off that you don't get to see the battleships in your sunk ships screen even when they're reported on the same day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
at this point I would guess that American newspapers are being ruthlessly censored
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
9 April 1943 Japanese destroyer Isonami, torpedoed by US submarine Tautog southeast of Celebes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
You've killed a lot of useful stuff like that APA as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Is the BB a harder or easier target in that port?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Under 300 point score shift.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Is the BB a harder or easier target in that port? Easier to hit but you may lose more aircraft to flak defenses and if you don't outright sink the ship it stands a much better chance of being repaired. Depending on the supplies at Efate those Cruisers should be back in action and mullering planes in short order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Would it be possible for the Allies to raise that BB from the bottom of the harbour and repair it? If yes, would it be feasible, or would it be something like "for that much effort and expense we could just build a new one"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Would it be possible for the Allies to raise that BB from the bottom of the harbour and repair it? If yes, would it be feasible, or would it be something like "for that much effort and expense we could just build a new one"? A bunch of the Pearl Harbor battleships were refloated but it took until 1944 for a couple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Battleships
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Would it be possible for the Allies to raise that BB from the bottom of the harbour and repair it? If yes, would it be feasible, or would it be something like "for that much effort and expense we could just build a new one"? No, WITP doesn't model refloating "sunk" ships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:No, WITP doesn't model refloating "sunk" ships. Well, it does respawn US ships sunk before a certain date though doesn't it? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Well, it does respawn US ships sunk before a certain date though doesn't it? No apparently they took that out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Well, it does respawn US ships sunk before a certain date though doesn't it? It only counted for specific ship types, Battleships were not one of them. Also,  ZekeNYgoatface posted:Under 300 point score shift. South Dakota is worth 217
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
So low? I thought they were well on the far side of 250, but I guess that's only carriers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
goatface posted:So low? I thought they were well on the far side of 250, but I guess that's only carriers? Only the Yamatos seem to be above 250
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:No apparently they took that out. I'm still sad about that. No second wind challenge! At this rate whenever a pair of Essexes come out they'll suicide out alone into enemy battleships and carriers. Fun, but not as fun as another decisive battle or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:I'm still sad about that. No second wind challenge! At this rate whenever a pair of Essexes come out they'll suicide out alone into enemy battleships and carriers. If, and it's still a big if, Grey ends up taking the AI to town, I hope he has the manly fortitude to not take auto-victory and instead shoot for conquering India or Australia or Alaska or all of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:If, and it's still a big if, Grey ends up taking the AI to town, I hope he has the manly fortitude to not take auto-victory and instead shoot for conquering India or Australia or Alaska or all of them. Yes, please Grey, keep sinking Essexes through 1946 and make Australia and NZ cry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Does the Yamato fit in the Panama Canal? We'll send the flagship to DC to accept Truman's surrender 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Does the Yamato fit in the Panama Canal? We'll send the flagship to DC to accept Truman's surrender Unfortunately, the Yamato is about 5 m too wide for Panamax, gonna have to take the long way around. Edit: too wide for the original locks, looks like the Yamato could do it after New Panamax locks were completed last year. Gully Foyle fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Does the Yamato fit in the Panama Canal? We'll send the flagship to DC to accept Truman's surrender It'd be pretty epic to see Grey defeat the Soviet army (somehow) and go up against nukes, rocket bombardment and an ever increasing stream of Midway-class carriers like Terran marines in a Lurker killzone. Actual Japanese survival in January 1950!!! RA Rx fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:I'm still sad about that. No second wind challenge! At this rate whenever a pair of Essexes come out they'll suicide out alone into enemy battleships and carriers. Considering the paucity of Japanese CV reinforcements, the awfulness that is Japanese damage control, the steady decline of Japanese pilot quality, and the sheer number of Essexes that will eventually come into play, it's still a die roll whenever the KB goes up against a single American CV, and there are so drat many that we need every edge we can get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Considering the paucity of Japanese CV reinforcements, the awfulness that is Japanese damage control, the steady decline of Japanese pilot quality, and the sheer number of Essexes that will eventually come into play, it's still a die roll whenever the KB goes up against a single American CV, and there are so drat many that we need every edge we can get. CVs aren't for killing carriers, BBs are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Considering the paucity of Japanese CV reinforcements, the awfulness that is Japanese damage control, the steady decline of Japanese pilot quality, and the sheer number of Essexes that will eventually come into play, it's still a die roll whenever the KB goes up against a single American CV, and there are so drat many that we need every edge we can get. Grey cancelling the carriers due in '45 would make an extended campaign quite painful unless we get a few (lot) more bizarrely one way naval battles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Another BB! Nice. You going to keep up the KB in the area to remain after them or at this point going to probably pull them back due to the Allies scattering everything in the area?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:41
|
|