|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 15:45:49 GMT -6
somebody had to carry the bomb, bad luck for the ship that did
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 5:41:31 GMT -6
This is hilarious... unless you are the captain of the Russian "research ship". That is exactly what the Russian trawlers looked like when they were snooping at our radar site during ELINT periods. Lots of antennas, not many fishing poles. Maybe the Russian's should think twice about building a navy and just rent one. they should have disgisued the antenna as fishing poles, anyway I have heard that they were devolping an armour package for LCS to call them frigates. Also as a ship launching event the first Type 001 class carrier has slide into the water from china
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 5:35:56 GMT -6
so, what would be the most efficent way to sink a carrier, say a 100k Nimitz class with full DC crews ready, without using nukes. Asking because of the regular as clockwork threats of nuclear annihilation and sinking all our ships in the area from the Democratic People's Repulic of Korea (North Korea)
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 5:27:33 GMT -6
I question why two ships had 60 land attack missile from a total of 180ish launchers, in an area that can go hot at a moments notice That would be because DDG-51s are not just tasked with land attack - their primary purpose is air defense; arguably land attack comes a distant second and then ASW. So looking at the possible weapons in the 96 cells on each ship, you would have SM-2/6 SAMs for ranged air defense (and a secondary antiship capability), SM-3 SAMs for knocking down ballistic missiles (and the DDG-51s we have based out of Rota in the Med are specifically there as BMD ships), RIM-162A ESSMs quad-packed in launch cells for short-range air defense, Tomahawks, and possibly a couple of RUM-139 ASROCs for ASW. The SAMs will have top priority because if you get into a situation where you need those, going "Winchester" is likely to result in you or a mission-critical asset taking a hit. When I used to edit my own loadouts for Fleet Command-NWP, I would give my DDG-51s 16-20 Tomahawks, 60+ cells with SAMs, and then maybe 4 cells set aside for ASROCs. I have no idea how the USN actually loads out its vessels, but for a high-threat scenario that seemed to be an appropriate balance for a vessel which could expect extensive air or missile attacks, occasionally strike land targets, and defend against submarine threats. still, like a third of their 96 cells were full of TLAMs, giveing them 66 cells for air defense and ASW (and nuclear as well as, soon, more shipkillers)
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 17, 2017 16:57:46 GMT -6
I question why two ships had 60 land attack missile from a total of 180ish launchers, in an area that can go hot at a moments notice
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 14, 2017 15:16:39 GMT -6
I do have one question, Old Chap: how do you intend to get the ships to the open sea? *Sips tea* What, you've never portaged a 12k ton Battleship? You must have gone to the wrong summer camps. my 12k-ton ships have like 5 (atomic) piles in the generator and motors so you try a port it across land
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 14, 2017 15:09:36 GMT -6
Though the F-34 was used as a naval gun in WW2 since the Russians built gunboats that essentially were T-34 turrets mounted on the hull. still designed for light mounts
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 14, 2017 5:52:36 GMT -6
incidentally niether the f-34 nor the ZIS-5 were copies of the french 75. I believe the F-32 was an extensively modified version though, and the soviets lost most of those in 41' which is why I included them
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 13, 2017 20:45:38 GMT -6
IThe enemy fleet would need to be capable of keeping distance from shore, unless it wishes to intentionally beach a vessel, or if weather conditions are particularly poor and one (but certainly not the whole fleet) or two ships accidentally run aground. FYI: 7 USN DDs ran aground like lemmings in the 20s-30s, sure their was fog but they had nav systems that didn't need clear LoS
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 13, 2017 18:50:03 GMT -6
the M1897 is not a naval gun, there is a huge difference between a ([very]light) howitzer and a naval gun Just to clarify, you seem to be saying that a land 3 inch gun is lighter then a naval 3 inch gun. As in like a lighter shell? naval guns tend to fire bigger shots faster then land cannons. American 3"/50 naval guns fire 11kg shells while the M2/M3/M6 75mm cannons fired 6.76kg shells (the M2/M3/M6 was based off the French 75, so a more neutral example, the Soviet F-34 3" gun {T-34s and the like} fire slighlty lighter shells, at 6.3kg for AP-HE shells)
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 13, 2017 8:53:32 GMT -6
the M1897 is not a naval gun, there is a huge difference between a ([very]light) howitzer and a naval gun
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 11, 2017 7:35:02 GMT -6
I wonder why that would help. Other than freeing up personnel to assist the damage control parties. That would be significant but I don't know that I'd want to lose my trained gun crews in the middle of a fight with no guarantee that they would be unharmed and able to return to their guns. being able to work near cannons, without overpressure killing you
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 3, 2017 16:35:51 GMT -6
just say you can't vote for you're own
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 2, 2017 8:47:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 1, 2017 12:19:57 GMT -6
it seems people forgot about the P part of pm
|
|