Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 135  Next

It was 1943, why were they never finished?

   

It is in fact a model of the proposed Montana class BB. The pic is of a model in 1:2400 scale. If I remember correctly they were deep-sixed because the carriers became the heavy hitters after the war started. The Montana's were designed prior to the out-break of the war. Apparently one of their intended tasks were to kill the Yamato class if it came down to war.

   

Here's the USN Historical Center'swords on the Montana Class

   

That is freekin huge

   

Those things were twice the mass as an aircraft carrier of WWII! about 2/3 the size of todays modern super carriers. wow,

   

The guy I wargammed with thought he was cool when he suprised me with the Yamato vice Kirishima during a game based on the Slot battles. He didn't like it at all when I responded a few weeks later with a pair of Montana class BB's vice South Dakota/Washington. He mumbled something about "no-fair" until I showed him that the rules system (Seapower) accounted for the class. We had to take them out of play because they were too damned lethal. Impressive in that game, they would have been more so if built. Imagine no Missouri at Tokyo Bay, no New Jersey in the '80s but one of them monsters in their place. 'What ifs" are fun.

Sorry for zipping off on a tangent.

   

That is HUGE! They'd have needed an ocean or two just to turn it around. What kind of design feature would have enabled it to withstand underwater weapons. Don't they used an air pocket and the ships own weight to break it's back?

   

Too bad the program was cancelled....

also explains why the allied were in a hurry to sink the Yamamoto and the Bismark.

   

That Dynavert was way too easy...

What about this one...

   

BAC TSR.2

It has a history not unlike the AVRO Arrow, although the TSR.2 was a piece of flying junk. 5 were built. One survives as a museum piece, the remainder were destroyed on the range.

   

I think their best defence is their sheer size. Although it is true that most modern torpedos are designed to break the back of a ship but to sink a ship of that size, you need a massive explosion. Weapons of that day may not have been big enough to do the job. I think all that could be expected is to disable the ship, burn it, or cause massive flooding. A naval expert cna either back me up or say i'm wrong, but generally flooding can be controled and that would be all that the torpedos could have done, that or disable the ship. Sinking it would have been nearly impossible.

   

Too easy again...

Lets try this...

   

A few Mosquitos would had sunk that bad boy...

   

In that particular era the preferred defence for large ships was an anti-torpedo belt. Simply put, it was just additional armour from a point above the waterline to a point just under the turn of the chine. If you can get your hands on a close-up waterline picture of a WWII constructed battleship or heavy cruiser you can see the distinct armour belt.

The best defence against a torpedo would be to have NOT penetrate the hull at all. Flooding can be controlled... if it's not too great an ingress of water. If a submarine decided it could actually penetrate the hull there would be several shots intended to creat several holes. You start using up damage control parties pretty quickly if the shotgun effect actually works. Additionally, flooding can be controlled by isolating the ruptured compartment, but that adds other problems, like steering, power, trim, etc. You'll note that armour is thickest around the engineering spaces, and for good reason. Flood a boiler room or the engine room and the ship is in a world of hurt.

   

Did you guys see the documentary on the sinking of the Bismark...
Very interesting... Turns out that the German might have sunk their own ship to avoid capture.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 135  Next