Search results
Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are even more results, please redefine your search.
Quoted from "BruceDuncan" I came across a wartime film on the construction and outfitting of US LSTs. Thought it might be of interest, as it shows them being built inland and taken down the Mississippi. Thats interesting. My paternal Grandfather served on LSTs and did spend a little time with some ships under construction, but in Portland. I also realized I didn't share it here but I recently came into a bunch of his wartime service documents. Including what looks to be a copy of the ship's log...
Long time no smoke signal. Ran into Brock while playing some World of Warships. Figured I would poke in and wave hello to everyone. Happy turkey day!
Baseline Saint class. Only changes made are correction of shell weights, alteration of light AA guns, and changing the cruising speed to 25knts as opposed to 20knts with the same amount of fuel (did this because its one of the few ships with a 20knt speed and I want to be consistent) Quoted Incrociatori Corazzati 1931, Italian Armored Cruiser laid down 1931 Displacement: 13,875 t light; 14,531 t standard; 16,585 t normal; 18,228 t full load Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught 637...
OK, will go ahead and play with things on mine with factory numbers.
I'm following the events of 1931-33 with regards to these two classes as follows. 1931: The Saint class cruisers are laid down. If the design specs are known, it is assumed by treaty members they will count for the last bit of Capital Tonnage allotted to Italy. Italy (wrongly) claims they are heavy cruisers per the treaty. 1932: The Ceaser class is laid down. It is clear these are going to be capital ships and take up the remainder of the tonnage. 1933: The Saints complete, and it is now clear t...
In this case, burden=cutting every non-mandatory ship that crosses into 1933 for construction. Something has to give here, especially considering there is no way to refit the Saints into compliance without a 50% job. It seems to me like the Saints are the most important class in this case, as long as something that only fits into capital tonnage is laid down in 1932. Since the original Saint design itself fits into capital tonnage, a repeat in place of the Ceasers makes the most sense to save to...
If the Ceasers are recast as slightly improved Saints, the same issue of both counting to capital ship construction stays because the Saint design is overweight anyway. The situation would play out like this, First three Saints are laid down in 1931, second three in 1932. Come 1933 when the first three complete, the whole dustup over whether they are cruisers or capital ships occurs as historical. They are refitted to make them compliant, with the idea that the second three will be refitted in t...
Tonnage saving compromise, I keep them as is with the historical refit to hit treaty legality, but I make it a class of two instead? Also, does this mean that the board feels that the Saints are moreso at fault then the Ceasers for the Italian part of Cileto collapsing? If so, does that mean the Ceasers fall out of the "keep exactly as is catagory and into "modafiable"? My thought is the following. IF Saint class is more to blame then Ceaser THEN Saint class stays as is (three with refit), Cease...
I poised the question to Brock and he refereed me back to the board.
So question for the board regarding the Saint class armored cruisers. "Historicly", the class was built in violation of Cileto and then refited to be legal. Details are in this thread. As far as we have been over, its the Ceaser class that played a major roll in the colaps of Cileto, not the Saints (tho the Saints might have given the already rolling ball some more push). Since I need to resim the design to take care of gun changes, would there be any issue with me cutting some more tonnage by r...
Reposting previously discussed CVs due to some modification. Portaerei 1936: In most respects, a Guiseppe Garibaldi modified to fix some of the more outlandish and legally questionable features. I will note I have modified the AA armament somewhat from the Guiseppe Garibaldi, with 8x100mm replacing 4 of the 152mm guns, if this change is felt to be to much I can revise to be closer to the Guiseppe Garibaldi. Only saving 688t over the class of two, but the legal issues called for a resim. Quoted P...
Based on RA's notes, I think those are suppose to be multiple layers of splinter protection. I did not include them to help save weight.
RA had two different scheems, the first was the historical Pulgise system, this would be present on the 1934 design. The second is this diagram, intended for the Tripolitania On both these systems, the main belt buts directly up against the TDS, which is maintained in the above designs.
Re-posting the previously discussed Battleship designs due to some modifications. Corazzata 1934: A slightly altered Littorio. Added some 100mm AA due to the 152mm DP mounts now being a later development then this class. Will be a class of two as opposed to three, in order to save 40,000t Quoted Corazzata 1934, Italian Battleship laid down 1934 Displacement: 40,000 t light; 42,123 t standard; 46,092 t normal; 49,267 t full load Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught 807.08 ft / 787....
Italy would be able to offer up ASW equipment for the destroyers. IIRC Italy has had a ahead throwing system in ether development or service for some time (Im not sure what was ever put into play, this is the only ency post on the subject).
Picking up the necessary corrections to the Italian reports again, I have discussed with Brock a solution for the resiming of Italian ships. As I have pointed out previously, I would really like to resim the Italian Navy to ensure there is no question the designs are legal, but I also understand the comments that have been made about wanting to make sure the ships in question are not altered to much from the existing forms. To that end, I present the following solution. When I began work on this...
Quoted from "Brockpaine" I'd say that the historical Croatia-Bosnia/Montenegrin border can probably be followed as the best approximation - until it becomes obvious that it diverges. Quoted from "BruceDuncan" Quoted from "Rooijen10" Both the Big Ass Map and the one Brock was referring to suggest that the border ends at Herceg Novi, probably done to keep things simple. That would appear logical. Can that be adopted as a consensus? This sounds good to me.
Hey guys, I apologize for being a ghost the last 2ish months. I bought a townhouse in December and had some other obligations that all piled on at the same time. My girlfriend also moved in with me, which has been a big change. Now things are calming down and I can get back into the swing of things here.
I need to take a step back and think. Will update things when ready.
The 76mm did not enter service untill far after this date, the 100mm was the primary AA gun of the 1930's under RA untill the 76mm replaced it in 1939. I'm unsure of the best way to continue here, it seems like just going through and eliminating ships might be the best way to go. *starts thinking about how to trim 200,000t of ships*
WesWorld »
Wednesday, April 17th 2024, 1:39am
Go to the top of the page
