Response to Basilan...

Ambitious Packrat

Tuesday, January 2nd 2007, 3:56am

Quick and dirty drawing of Melbourne with the CA37 thrown in, since they are very similar in overall design (if not in concept) and we are discussing both at the time.

Dont worry Ithekro I have a design that would make even Oyama scared of her...Oh and I dont have to worry about the Treaty anymore. :evil:

Now where did I leave those 9.2" guns?

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

22

Tuesday, January 2nd 2007, 2:40pm

Quoted

Her job will be to escort carriers and hunt raiders and raid herself but she can take on Basilan if need be. However the Vadodaras are considered a more probable enemy.

That's really only a likelyhood if you use this class for raiding, because it's not how I'd be employing Vadodara and Varanasi. The fact that you're even contemplating match-ups puzzles me a bit. Why would Oz and India be in a shooting match? If there's one chunk of Asia that SATSUMA doesn't seem to want freed of colonial influence, it's Oz.

Quoted

Dont worry Ithekro I have a design that would make even Oyama scared of her...Oh and I dont have to worry about the Treaty anymore. Now where did I leave those 9.2" guns?

You should consider whether a 9.2" cruiser creates larger problems than it solves. India's hardly likely to sign on to a Cleito successor with one of those wacky Dominions building such things.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

23

Tuesday, January 2nd 2007, 2:52pm

Quoted

That's really only a likelyhood if you use this class for raiding, because it's not how I'd be employing Vadodara and Varanasi. The fact that you're even contemplating match-ups puzzles me a bit. Why would Oz and India be in a shooting match? If there's one chunk of Asia that SATSUMA doesn't seem to want freed of colonial influence, it's Oz.

Could be that Australia's postulating a general war scenario, where SATSUMA and the Commonwealth are on opposite sides. In that case, Indian vessels would be astride Australia's connection to GB. Such a shooting match might have been started directly or indirectly.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

24

Tuesday, January 2nd 2007, 3:26pm

I s'pose.

Go to the top of the page

Hrolf Hakonson

Scooby-Doo

Posts: 6,178

25

Tuesday, January 2nd 2007, 3:31pm

Could also be just general Australian paranoia.

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

26

Tuesday, January 2nd 2007, 5:47pm

I like the idea of it being a wacky Dominion thing. Kind of like the "new" battlecruisers using old 13.5 inch guns.

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

27

Wednesday, January 3rd 2007, 12:39am

Any 9.2" cruisers are liable to 15" accidents. Unless they fly a non-defaced White Ensign.

But 7.5" cruisers will just get a knowing smile from the Singapore quartermaster, and a shrug from the Admiralty in London.

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

28

Wednesday, January 3rd 2007, 1:00am

There better be an exception

"Any 9.2" cruisers are liable to 15" accidents. Unless they fly a non-defaced White Ensign."

...for those flying the blue St. Andrew's Cross...

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

29

Wednesday, January 3rd 2007, 3:27am

I think Canuckistan and Oz are flying the Blue ensign, actually.

-schemes- :B

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

30

Wednesday, January 3rd 2007, 11:45am

What I don´t like is her all forward armament. I´m also not very fond of the heavy scout cruiser concept in general. Better have a real floatplane carrier and a real CA.

Against all CAs mentioned in this threat I´d take my LADON-class in a 1-on-1 anyday. Being a 1929er design she still seems superior to all other units mentioned here - and also carriers her own airborne element (hangarspace and misc weight for 2 planes).

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

31

Wednesday, January 3rd 2007, 7:26pm

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
There better be an exception

"Any 9.2" cruisers are liable to 15" accidents. Unless they fly a non-defaced White Ensign."

...for those flying the blue St. Andrew's Cross...

Very well.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I think Canuckistan and Oz are flying the Blue ensign, actually.

-schemes- :B

My point exactly...

Go to the top of the page

Desertfox

Ambitious Packrat

Posts: 4,058

32

Wednesday, January 3rd 2007, 7:41pm

Quoted

Any 9.2" cruisers are liable to 15" accidents. Unless they fly a non-defaced White Ensign.

But 7.5" cruisers will just get a knowing smile from the Singapore quartermaster, and a shrug from the Admiralty in London.

Ah but what about a 9.2" Battleship?