WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
If SecNav wants a cutting response for the President, it should be that the USN has neglected it's building programs compared to the last 20 years of advancements abroad; the USN only has two new battleships in the pipeline, while almost every other power has more new ships in service, as well as more still building.

That's very true. The USN's cruiser fleet is excellent, and the carriers well-developed, but the battle line needs replacements.

Heh, the President won't be bothered, after all, he was just elected in 1936 and took office this year. So he can (with some truth) blame that on the previous administration. Politically, this is a good thing.....

Well, hopefully his term will be brief. [size=1](Sorry. Based upon my reading of Huey Long's history, I rather took an intense dislike to him. Of course, there aren't any politicians of that era that I DO like, with the exception of Churchill...)[/size]

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Orange Force responded well in spite of Nimitz's brilliantly-executed performance. The three leading battleships, the Atlantean Philomedes, Memnon, and Emathion, massed their fire against the Washington. Within three minutes, the judges ruled that the Blue Force flagship had been put out of action and was dead in the water. The Washington silenced, the Orange battleships all shifted their fire down the line and proceeded to target New Mexico, which was then knocked out of the fight in only five minutes, whereupon the Atlanteans shifted fire again to the West Virginia.

Well, regarding Washington it´s more than just "out of action". It´s also "dead in the water" and "silenced". From 5-6 15" shells? (My earlier example was for 12-gun ships but the Atlanteans fielded such with just 9 each).

Either the USN rated their own ships very, very low or they haven´t learned a thing from Doggerbank or Jutland (if these happened in WesWorld).

Anyway, I´m beating a dead horse. XoP

"That ain't a dead horse. This is a dead horse."

"Neutralized" may be a better term than "Silenced"; It's possible that Washington was disabled, and had her rear guns put out of action, and unable to bring the forward guns to bear.

To put the USN's lack of new large construction to perspective;

The only other player really in the USN's weight class is the RN; They've ordered 10 modern (St. Vincent/Victorious) battleships, most of them already in service, with a further 5 rumored to be ordered in the near future.

Atlantis has 4 Modern (Memnon and followups) in service, with 6 more on order.

The SAE has 6 similar ships (Ophion/Imperator/Monarch classes) completed or close to, and two larger ships on order. In addition, they have the Mocambique class, and smaller ships such as Triumph and Radiance.

Russia has 8 modern battleships completed, or close to it. Germany has 4 Bismarcks, and 4 larger ships on order.

Moving into less friendly territory;
Iberia has two classes of new combatants...but the Encyclopedia doesn't have names or numbers, so I can't detail anything. But the US is likely keeping an eye on the Iberians given history and territory.

Italy has 3 modern ships built, 2 more on order, and Lepanto.

Japan has 3 Battleships and 3 Battlecruisers, plus 4 Battleships on order.

And lastly, India has 4 essentially second-class battleships in service, or on order.

To counter all this new construction, the USN has....Montana and South Dakota on order. Even worse, as most 'current' designs are becoming quite large, even a crash building program will not yeild results for several years.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Iberia has two classes of new combatants...but the Encyclopedia doesn't have names or numbers, so I can't detail anything. But the US is likely keeping an eye on the Iberians given history and territory.

There are three Iberian La Lunas: La Luna, Los Estallas, and El Sol. I've never seen enough info to know how many Mercuries CG plans to build, but so far there's Mercury and Venus.

I must have missed something, in what way are Italy and Iberia less friendly?

In the sense that the US is allied to the UK and Atlantis through FAR, and by extention has decent relations with Russia. There's also a close German-American relationship, and I'm not aware of any problems with SAE and US.

On the other hand, The Iberian-American war still rankles the Americans, and there was a recent chill in relations when a sizable excersize was held in the Caribbean, including Italian and Japanese units. That was a few years ago, but I'm not aware of anything in particular done to improve relations since then, and there's still the whole "Who owns the Caribbean" issue. The US still feels the Monroe doctrine applies, whereas Iberia (and others) dissent.

The USN, here in WW, is NOT in the RNs weight class. Keep in mind that the US only has 30 factories, not even close to what the UK has.

There are two more South Dakotas to be ordered in 1937, but yeah, long lead times are a problem, and why the upgrades for the Big Six are extremely important. The problem is that there's a lot of ships that the USN needs (subs, DDs, BBs, etc) and a smaller industrial base than Russia, Germany, or Atlantis to do it with. So you have to make choices.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
In the sense that the US is allied to the UK and Atlantis through FAR, and by extention has decent relations with Russia. There's also a close German-American relationship, and I'm not aware of any problems with SAE and US.

Correction, allied via NATO with distant links to FAR. Via NATO the Americans are also allied to the commonwealth.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
On the other hand, The Iberian-American war still rankles the Americans, and there was a recent chill in relations when a sizable excersize was held in the Caribbean, including Italian and Japanese units. That was a few years ago, but I'm not aware of anything in particular done to improve relations since then, and there's still the whole "Who owns the Caribbean" issue. The US still feels the Monroe doctrine applies, whereas Iberia (and others) dissent.

Early on there was definately tention between NATO and the then AANM, given the fact that NATO was created when the AANM did some showboating vs. Mexican grandstanding. At that time there was tention between the big three Caribbean nations (U.S., Atlantis, Iberia) but for the most part the U.S. and Atlantis were somewhat content with "sharing" the Caribbean.

Unfortunately the freindliness between the U.S. and Atlantis at the time followied by the Mexican bravado was misinterpreted by Iberia and tentions hightened hence the creation of NATO. Since such time Atlantis has recognised Iberia's sence of being hedged in and several rounds of diplomatic talks have occured to help cool things off.

I can't speak for the U.S. but Atlantis is reasonable satisfied that tentions have eased up with Iberia to the point that cordial diplomacy can be persued.

Generally I'm of like mind with Hoo.

At this time frame, spotting is still visual, and while there might be great hope for massed fires, there would likely be a greater time to first get on target- during which only one ship should be firing so as to not confuse the spotters- and then to register that the ship is indeed out of commission and shift fires.

The assertion that the Judges can be wildly optimistic is almost certainly correct, but the times really do seem a bit shrunk.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
To counter all this new construction, the USN has....Montana and South Dakota on order. Even worse, as most 'current' designs are becoming quite large, even a crash building program will not yeild results for several years.

Heck even the Dutch have the two Kortenaer class under construction, and van Heemskerck and the two Utrecht class aren't that old.