Search results
Search results 1-20 of 65.
The gun got a strong resemblence to the post-ww2 Bofors 105mm 4140 howtizer. Apart from firing a much heavier shell, with a lower muzzle velocity, from a lighter gun with shorter barrel. Same range however& Google books Cannot find any pictures of it however.
Quoted Originally posted by Commodore Green No, unfortunately.... It's going to be some bonfire here though, while we were out at Gamla Uppsala yesterday, we saw about a dozen 4x4's and estate cars (Station-wagons), within 30 minutes, hauling trailers of stuff to a prepared site for burning. Hopefully our next destination will be having a bonfire as well!! The last of April celebrations here in Uppsala (and some of the other university towns in Sweden) is a bit bizarre; as it is the only day of...
Quoted Originally posted by Commodore Green ....on holidays again!! I'm off from 23rd April until 1st May inclusive. Going to be in Uppsala on the last of april?
Quoted Originally posted by HoOmAn Gentlemen, what´s the british/american term for "Sperrbrecher". I´m referring to a ship (often a former merchant) filled-up with hard to sink stuff like empty barrels that guards traffic in or out harbours where mines are expected. Thanks, HoOmAn I think "Mine breaker" is the term. At least is that what wikipedia calls ships with that function. But "Block breakers" sounds cooler.
Quoted Originally posted by Desertfox I would suggest giving her a heavier secondary armament and moving both 6" turres foward to clear up space in the rear for the mines. Considering the height of the freeboard, it seems likely she carries her mines internally.
Quoted Originally posted by Desertfox The P-39 had lots of potential, unfortunately the decision to remove the Turbocharger effectively killed it. Its central engine gave it less rotational inertia and it could have been a deadly fighter with a good engine. Not really, that and its undeserved reputation in the west killed it there. It was after all one of the most sucessfull fighters in the east. About the P-51, i am a bit surprised no one has said anything about what i consider to be its large...
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral Are you sure? In the MTO when they were flying P-400s(P39) they got cut up extremely bad by C.202s/205s and Bf109s The P39 was used for ground attack in the Pacific Island hopping and North Africa. Hm, i do not think the P-39 did suffer extremely in the MTO, not worse then any other US fighter at least. With some risk i will use a Osprey book as a source: The P-40 had a loss rate 0f 0.8 per sortie, the P-39 0,4, and both aircrafts had about equal kill/los...
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral The P-39 is like a tractor rather than a fighter. It was good down low for ground attack. Loses out on altitude performance. Ground attack? When were the Aircobra used in that role (hint, not by the Sovjets)? True, it was not a good fighter att higher altitudes, but at low and medium altitude it were equal or superior to most of its german opponents. After all, it was the aircraft flown by several of the most sucessfull allied figher pilots!
Quoted Originally posted by Earl822 I think I'm gonna revise back to 10000lb max Well, the development of the Pe-8 was started in 1934, and that aircraft should fit your specifications very nicely. (Puts on suit of Petlyakov salesman) It has excellent defensive armament, great speed range and payload, and is able to carry a 5000kg bomb for those really hard targets.
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral This has come up many many times on other aviation boards. What was the "best" piston-engined fighter of WWII? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions and arguments on this. Hm, i think i will stick my jaw out a bit and say Lavochkin La-7, armed with three 20mm guns in the nose it had excellent firepower, as well as superior manoeuvrability to almost everything, and a speed that was equal or superior to almost all other aircrafts at normal combat altit...
Quoted Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov Obukhoff guns are noted for their accuracy. Ask Goeben . I know the russian ships did alot of first rate shooting in ww1, but all other things equal, a larger gun is more accurate then a smaller one.
Quoted Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov 12 200kg rounds incoming on Blucher. 9 330kg rounds coming back. Blucher has an edge in guns and armor, no doubt, balanced a bit by Makarov's greater stability, steadiness, and speed. Makarov will hit earlier and more often . Blucher will hit harder. Might want to run this one through Alt_Naval's spreadsheet. Hm, i do not think agree with that, Blücher is slightly larger and have guns that are a bit more accurate, something that would at least equal the ...
Quoted Originally posted by Salaam86 Quoted Originally posted by Korpen Quoted Originally posted by Rooijen10 So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman? Pretty hard to kill this thing. Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas. And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by ot...
Quoted Originally posted by Rooijen10 So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman? Pretty hard to kill this thing. Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas. And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by other 15" turrets it needs at least 1m more, preferably 2m, so i think it ...
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral For the deck armour layout I'd go the other way round with 25mm deck then 130mm below. The 25mm deck will decap projectiles before they impact the deck armour and initiate the fuzes on bombs. Speaking of decapping plates, 40mm will only work against soft-nosed shells. Increase it to about 70-80mm and extend it upwards to the weather deck bounded by 25mm plate. Agreed that a high deck is better against bombs, but it is not much point in decapping shells as...
Quoted Originally posted by CanisD Well, the Mk3 16"/50 was the version blocked by the treaty. It actually was the gun intended for the Iowas, but there was a screw-up in the design and they had to make the Mk7 as an emergency solution, and it turned out to be superior with the 2700 lbs shell. I think the Mk6 45 cal was designed primarily because it weighed less than the 50 cal, though I'm not sure. I know it supposedly had excellent deck penetration, superior to even the Mk7. So, if there's no...
Hm, i just realized that none of the guns on the ship is raised, so the picture is incorrect, all gun should be at deck level, with no superfiring main battery. (but i guess it is simply forgotten in SS) Funny nobody have seen that, i guess I simply took it for granted.
Quoted Originally posted by CanisD Interesting...now i just need to build a 15" gun! Go ahead, what's stopping you?
Quoted Originally posted by Ithekro Just a note: An American Battleship wouldn't be designed on metrics. Well, the opposite seem much more common in wesworld, that is ships belonging to countries that have never used imperial measurements (Nordmark & the Netherlands to name two) having ships designed in imperial. So it obviously does not matter.
Well, just interested in some more feedback, it is a design i posted over at the warships1 forum. I am aware of the problem with quad turrets, but as the design was limited to 35k ton strict, i considered the weight savings worth it. Firepower is good, protection is excellent (her belt should stop her own shells as 17k yards), and speed is at least equal to other capital ships. I used the French 38cm gun, but the ship is intended for the US. Peace&Love III, USA Battleship laid down 1936 Displace...
WesWorld »
Tuesday, April 16th 2024, 9:54am
Go to the top of the page
