Author Topic: Historical ships with FS names  (Read 4565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Historical ships with FS names
Brit AA bordered on laughable by US standards, and that was before Pearl Harbor.

A US attack transport circa mid-1942 would have had more and better AAA guns then either PoW or Repulse did when they were sunk.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Androgeos Exeunt

  • Captain Oblivious
  • 212
  • Prevents attraction.
    • Wordpress.com Blog
Re: Historical ships with FS names
Quote
It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much...

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.  The Prince of Wales was a King George V-class Battleship and the Repulse was a Renown-class Battlecruiser.  And they were supposed to have air cover, but the carrier assigned to escort them was damaged en route.

Aren't Battleships supposed to have flak cannons and Anti-Fighter Beams mounted on them or so?

You've played too much FreeSpace... :drevil:

The thing is, I've seen pictures of both ships. They have lots of guns, yes, and I do believe they are quite powerful ships in their time, but even destroyers with lots of guns aren't invincible. Why do you think ships need escort?
My blog

Quote: Tuesday, 3 October 2023 0133 UTC +8, #general
MP-Ryan
Oh you still believe in fairy tales like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and free market competition principles?

 

Offline Al Tarket

  • 28
  • A resident nutcase from Jerusalem.
    • An FSO Modification site
Re: Historical ships with FS names
"are not invincible". the japanese carrier formation near pearl harbor a long time was proof of that that even the best ships are not always at top class. that also goes with that american carrier that was bombed and almost destroyed once but just after that battle finished it got bombed again and sank by a few enemy fighters.
Cowardice is no selfishness, Friendliness is no enemy and Information is no attack platform.

Judge these words wisely and you might make it through this cruel world.

 
Re: Historical ships with FS names
Quote
It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much...

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.  The Prince of Wales was a King George V-class Battleship and the Repulse was a Renown-class Battlecruiser.  And they were supposed to have air cover, but the carrier assigned to escort them was damaged en route.

Aren't Battleships supposed to have flak cannons and Anti-Fighter Beams mounted on them or so?

You've played too much FreeSpace... :drevil:

The thing is, I've seen pictures of both ships. They have lots of guns, yes, and I do believe they are quite powerful ships in their time, but even destroyers with lots of guns aren't invincible. Why do you think ships need escort?

FS is somewhat strange with its warship classes. The PoW and the repulse both weren't destroyers. Battleships and their equally armed but faster bretheren (less armored Battlecruisers) are designed to blow away other ships and such posses less AA defences.
 The wiki says they were escorted by four destroyers, all combined they had a rather good AA defence, but without the carrier as much as 86 bombers screwed fiery explosive death   right up the brit's asses. Too bad, I like brits :(
And this ain't no ****. But don't quote me for that one. - Mika

I shall rrreach worrrld domination!

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Historical ships with FS names
FS is somewhat strange with its warship classes. The PoW and the repulse both weren't destroyers. Battleships and their equally armed but faster bretheren (less armored Battlecruisers) are designed to blow away other ships and such posses less AA defences.
 The wiki says they were escorted by four destroyers, all combined they had a rather good AA defence, but without the carrier as much as 86 bombers screwed fiery explosive death   right up the brit's asses. Too bad, I like brits :(

The majority of Brit destroyers did not have power-worked dual-purpose guns and hence their many batteries were, at best, marginally effective in an AA role. (It's rather telling many of them eventually had to give up their after torpedo tubes for a 4" high-angle gun.) Furthermore at that point in the war they would have been bereft of any sort of light AA gun, and their medium AA gun would have been the the 2-pdr pom-pom (as it was through almost the entire war) which was a very advanced weapon when it was introduced into service...11 years before. Prince of Wales had a useful battery of 5.25" guns to call on, but they had about half the rate of fire of a US 5" mount, and at that point in the war lacked much in the way of fire control.

Despite 6 years of battle in the North Atlantic against submarines, and numerous engagements in every sea bordering the European continent against surface ships, for the RN in WW2, death usually came from the air.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Wanderer

  • Wiki Warrior
  • 211
  • Mostly harmless
Re: Historical ships with FS names
Brit AA bordered on laughable by US standards, and that was before Pearl Harbor.

A US attack transport circa mid-1942 would have had more and better AAA guns then either PoW or Repulse did when they were sunk.
Well... US battleships carried about the same or even less AAA guns than King George class vessels in 1941.. Non-AA guns marked (including non-DP batteries)

Quote from: Wikipedia
HMS Prince of Wales
10 × 14 in/45 cal. (356 mm/45 cal.)(2 × 4, 1 × 2) mk VII
16 × 5.25 in/50 cal. (133 mm/50 cal.) dual purpose (8 × 2)
48 2 pdr (1.5 in) AA (40 mm) (6 × 8)
1 40 mm AA
8 20 mm AA (8 × 1)

USS Arizona
12 × 14 in (356 mm) guns
12 × 5"/51 (127 mm) guns

12 × 5"/25 (127 mm) guns
2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes

USS North Carolina
9 × 16 inch (406 mm) guns
20 × 5 inch (127 mm) dual-purpose guns
16 × 28 mm machine gun
Do not meddle in the affairs of coders for they are soggy and hard to light

 

Offline terran_emperor

  • 7 Impossible Requests Before Breakfast
  • 210
  • Kane Live in Death
Re: Historical ships with FS names
[quoteauthor=Ian Hislop]
...Wikipedia. that reliable tool for all of us[!]
[/quote]
e = m csarged - Relativity according to Sarge [Red vs Blue]

TRUE SHIVAN

HLP's only Goro Naya (Great Leader) fan


"I really wasn't expecting this much losership"


"Only one thing is impossible for a Vorlon to understand: How to change the IRQ setting in any DOS computer."

HLP Brit

  

Offline Androgeos Exeunt

  • Captain Oblivious
  • 212
  • Prevents attraction.
    • Wordpress.com Blog
Re: Historical ships with FS names
[quoteauthor=Ian Hislop]
...Wikipedia. that reliable tool for all of us[!]
[/quote]

Not really. It's good for basic reference, but that's it. When the articles on Citizendium are fully developed, you might want to consider looking at those.

In any case, I'm a layman when it comes to real ship armament. :blah:
My blog

Quote: Tuesday, 3 October 2023 0133 UTC +8, #general
MP-Ryan
Oh you still believe in fairy tales like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and free market competition principles?