Community - Forum - View old data

Categories :  

U.S Navy


  • Guns on the Montana

    04. 02. 2011 12:24

Can i use the tripple 18" guns on the Montana? beacuse one of the original designs
was to use 12X18" guns. The other design called for 16X16" guns. So do you think
they could make Quad 16" ??

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 12. 2011 18:18

very good info man where do you get this stuff PM if you want

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 11. 2011 19:53

-"because they are very versatile like look at nimitz class its a very versatile ship and
my bro told me thare makes a new carrier thats like bigger and more plane space
and 2 decks(not sure)"-

The new Ford class carriers arent much bigger than a Nimitz in most regards. The flight
deck will be slightly larger to eliminate some of the chaos that occurs on a working
flight deck. Other than that the hull dimensions are identical to the Nimitz class. They
will facilitate the same amount of aircraft which is 85-90 (although typically they only
carry around 70 onboard during a tour of duty). The Fords however will be technologically
way more advanced.

Yes the USN did design and test 18" guns. However none were ever planned to be deployed on
a US Battleship. After the design of the Mark-7 16"/50's and the evidence of the armor
piercing capability of the newer Mark-8 2,700lb superheavy AP round they no longer had a
need for a larger naval rifle and the problems involved will handling such a cumbersome
and heavy round onboard a warship. The USN labeled the 18" as "unpractical" as they were
MUCH heavier, a slower rate of fire and no platform designed to carry enough of the 18"
guns to be effective with the Iowa and Montana classes the "Pinnacle" of battleship
designs using the 16"/50's.

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 11. 2011 14:41

have fun with that grind tho i looked up some stuff the SN BB5 or 6 is slow as hell
like it OH is 35 knots and it gose 21 i think thares a video by this vets kid he has
good videos for CV traing should check it out

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 10. 2011 16:33

Don't know yet. I have nothing left to grind except my CV and SS. I'm not planning on
starting a MN or SN crew.

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 10. 2011 12:11

well yea i gusse you are kindof right what about the SN tho???

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 10. 2011 11:10

Any BB5 can be the best. L2 is just the most versatile. It's only downfall is BW cv's.

H44 can strike a ship before it gets into range in most cases. Can stop swarms of bombers.

SY can slingshot like crazy and pick off scouts. Can run away from anything and has best

Montana can stop any ship in it's tracks. Other than that it's well rounded.

Alsace... well. Ridiculous is the first thing that comes to mind.

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 09. 2011 19:11

lololol i love this thread but look how off topic we got :P

but in game i think the trip 16s or 18 doubles plz correct me if wrong is very good its
to me one of the best BB5 after or a bit befor the lion2 :)

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 09. 2011 13:54

LOL hoping for a measure of historical reality is pointless. I completely gave up with the
release of the SN 1900s series of battleships that hit like modern BBs. Utterly stupid. I
hate balance. Why not make it at least patterned on realism. Call me crazy, but isn't the
point of playing a WWII game to make it based on WWII?

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 08. 2011 16:55

Meh, who cares anyway. Apparently I'm one of the few that actually gives a rats ass
about realism, theories of late war ships and things that make sense versus mindless

Hooray for 15 inch guns that hit as hard as 18's!

  • Re : Guns on the Montana

    04. 08. 2011 15:38

I agree with the above. The Japanese need for extreme courage created a waste of assets.
In the end, they would still have been outnumbered and defeated, but from the civil war
onward, the US military has depended on numbers (strategically, not tactically) to win. If
Japan had conserved more of their units, the US need for superior numbers would indeed
have forced the completion of additional heavy units.
1 2 3 4