ID
Password
FlashGuide
FlashGuide
HA Infomation

Image Board

  Index

  • Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    02. 27. 2013 02:37

Vote : 1
Category : Navy Field

imranazmi99
Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

Wondering Aroun And Saw This Ship I H ave NO Idea what Is it

 

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 01. 2013 09:31


GTMaddtim

Originally Posted by ChicagoBears

Originally Posted by angus725

Useless design:

Gun fire blasts will damage planes and the flight deck.
Long, straight flight deck inefficient compared to angled deck.
The usual reason a battleship got bigger, was so that it would have more displacement for larger guns, and not more guns. (Eg, why would I put 27 8" guns on a montana?)
3 Bridges is a waste of displacement, not to mention exaust from the smokestacks would blind any men on the rear bridges.
Case mate side guns have been shown in WWI to be inefficient (low max angle), and easily take on water during rough seas.
Distance between boilers (beneath smoke stacks) to the rear of the ship is very great, it's inefficient to have a shaft bringing power that far back. (eg, IJN Tone had 4 turrets in front, 0 in back)
Like the others have said, bigger ship=bigger target, would be the first to be targeted in any battle. 


The deck wouldn't be damaged, those guns don't look near big enough to do that, plus they won't fire all of them at the same time if it were in real life. Also, they obviously wouldn't have planes just sitting out on the deck when they went to go fire, and I don't think the shockwave from such small guns can damage planes, maybe make people go deaf or knock them off the deck if they were a lot larger guns. Also, there are only 8 triple barrel guns, from the look of them i'd guess IJN 6-8" guns. And this ship wouldn't be out alone, that would be stupid and just begging opposing fleets to sink it, it would have a very heavily armed and massive fleet of cruisers and things like that with AA, not to mention this ship would also have large amounts of AA. But yes, this would require way too much power and the shear size of this (like a CL and 2 aircraft carriers combined, that is a lot of sailors/weapons/ammo/planes/fuel/equipment. It would be more than a miracle if this thing actually was able to float.) is just not practical given that it has such small guns on it and two flight decks (why would any ship need TWO flight decks?).



Do a little research in the Lexington and Saratoga.  As originally configured, they had 4 8" twin mounts around the conning tower (2 fore and 2 aft).  They ran into all kinds of problems with them (including deck damage) and, while the Lexington sank before the change was made, the Saratoga had them replaced with the standard US 5"/38cal twin mounts as found on the Essex class carriers.  the 5"/38's were also better for AA use.

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 01. 2013 15:22


mustangman

Looks like someone went wild with paint.

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 02. 2013 11:41


BullHasley

those look like 18in guns of the yamoto. The fact that this ship looks like its longer then any ship on the seas at that time makes me wonder, if they did make this ship, where the hell would they construct it? down in antarctica? 

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 08. 2013 10:04


vinnie007

Would this be a German equivalent? =P

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 08. 2013 10:44


Thebarrel

Originally Posted by Benser33

Bit big and impractical I think. Would be an easy target and surely cant fire guns while launching aircraft. Or store enough aircraft to justify 2 decks. Or move very fast, or be very stable when firing all guns.

 

Looks cool though :)



for a real life situation it might be an alright ship as it has mobile artillery and has air support

but the cost of production / probably quite easy to sink with counter artillery etc would probably be too much of a risk to use/develop  

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 15. 2013 19:17


ChicagoBears

Originally Posted by vinnie007

Would this be a German equivalent? =P


Is that a UFO?

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    03. 15. 2013 20:54


Happymeal2

Originally Posted by Thebarrel

Originally Posted by Benser33

Bit big and impractical I think. Would be an easy target and surely cant fire guns while launching aircraft. Or store enough aircraft to justify 2 decks. Or move very fast, or be very stable when firing all guns.

 

Looks cool though :)



for a real life situation it might be an alright ship as it has mobile artillery and has air support

but the cost of production / probably quite easy to sink with counter artillery etc would probably be too much of a risk to use/develop  


It would be much too easily disabled by artillery and/or aircraft. Instead of having to shoot 3 or 4 seperate ships (looks like the firepower of 2 battleships, plus 2 flight decks) you instead only have to disable one ship. Sure, its probably got thicker armor than your average ship, but theres always a weak spot and one good solid hit to an ammo storage area or the engines can put the whole thing out of action. Id rather have 2 carriers and a yamato. In fact, thats what i would use to kill this thing.

  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    05. 01. 2013 03:38


myg0t1

there is a reason CVs never sported BB guns IRL....


  • Re : Mighty Battleship + MIGHTY Carrier=BattleCarrier Be like This

    05. 06. 2013 11:20


vinnie007

Originally Posted by ChicagoBears

Originally Posted by vinnie007

Would this be a German equivalent? =P


Is that a UFO?



Yes :D

1 2