froggyfrenchman
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2988
 | | 16 Jul 2008 06:13 PM |
| Although we are still looking for standard displacements for
a few of the hypothetical ships. Here is what we have been able
to find (using the above figures).
8 units
Yamato
Montana
Shinano A/C (battleship pump)
7.5 units
H-39
Sovyetskiy Soyuz
7 units
Iowa
Vanguard
Midway A/C
6.5 units
Bismarck
Roma
Lion (British hypo)
Jean Bart (bulged)
KII battleship (Japan)
6 units
Rodney
KGV
SoDak
N.C.
Richelieu
Hood battlecruiser
Lexington battlecruisers
G-3 battlecruisers
South Dakota (WW1)
Tosa
No. 13 (Japan battlecruiser)
Amagi battlecruiser
Gascoigne
Illustrious A/C
Indomitable A/C
Implacable A/C
Saratoga A/C (battlecruiser pump)
Essex A/C
Graf Zeppelin A/C
Akagi A/C (battlecruiser pump)
Kaga A/C (battleship pump)
Shokaku A/C
Junyo A/C
Taiho A/C
Aquila A/C (Italy)
5.5 units
Nagato
Scharnhorst (BB)
Gneisenau (BB), (twin 15" conversion)
Kronshtadt battlecruisers (Russia)
Sachsen
Lyon
Francesco Caracciolo
Most others unchanged.
5 units
Dutch battlecruisers (Slagkruisers)
Ersatz Yorck battlecruisers
B-64 type battlecruisers (Japan)
P-class battlecruisers (O,P,Q), (Germany)
Furious A/C
Courageous A/C
Ark Royal A/C
Yorktown A/C
Eagle A/C
Soryu A/C
Hiryu A/C
Unryu A/C
Bearn A/C (battleship pump)
Joffre A/C (France)
Most others un-changed.
4.5 units
Alaska
Renown
Mackensen battlecruisers
Normandie
Borodino battlecruisers
Most others un-changed
4 units
Courageous battlecruiser
Furious battlecruiser
Ranger A/C
Wasp A/C
Hermes A/C
Langley A/C
Hosho A/C
Ryujo A/C
Zuiho A/C
Ryuho A/C
Most other unchanged.
3.5 units
Sverdlov class cruisers (Russia)
All pre-dreadnaught battleships
Pre-dreadnaught battleships get a battleship pump. So a full unit pump can put out 1.25 gpm. A half-unit pump can put out 1 gpm.
3 units
Chapayev class cruisers (Russia)
Independence class light carriers
Saipan class light carriers
Worcester class light cruisers
2.5 units
M-class light cruisers (Germany)
This is just a list of ships that I am putting together for comparisons. It is not the ship list.
We are still working on putting together our ship-list.
Most ships in the other fast-gun clubs will not change units when battling in the Treaty format.
Mikey
| | | |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2183
| | 16 Jul 2008 06:50 PM |
| Some nice additions to things. I would love to see some of those beasts on the water. | | | I am prepared to meet my maker, whether He is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
-Sir Winston- | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 16 Jul 2008 07:07 PM |
| We need to get you into Treaty's first pre-dread... | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2183
| | 16 Jul 2008 07:44 PM |
| That might not be such a bad idea. They would be a bit less crippled. | | | I am prepared to meet my maker, whether He is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
-Sir Winston- | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 17 Jul 2008 04:04 AM |
| I think a pre-dread could be a lot of fun in treaty. They aren't world beaters (but so far we haven't found anything that is) but with their small size they should be pretty manueverable, and anything that it latches on to is probably going to get torn up. I also can't imagine them taking a lot of damage either, and even if they did a battleship pump in a hull that size should do a pretty credible job of keeping them afloat.
While not a big fan of pre dreads personally, I really, really like that Austrian Radetsky class ship. They are just darned cool looking. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Anachronus
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2183
| | 17 Jul 2008 07:56 AM |
| I would have to agree. Their big brothers are not bad either.
I have some plans for them lying around too.
I was leaning towards one of the Wobbly Eight. The real ones were quite manueverable. I wonder if that holds true in scale.
| | | I am prepared to meet my maker, whether He is prepared for the ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
-Sir Winston- | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 17 Jul 2008 08:44 AM |
| They're short and relatively fat, so I'd assume they'd be good turners. They'd definitely not have a lot of target area. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 17 Jul 2008 08:45 AM |
| I'm looking forward to seeing some of those hypos out there too. I really think ships like Amagi have potential to be nasty little customers. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Gettysburg114th
[ROLES:Veteran]
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1639
| | 17 Jul 2008 08:49 AM |
| I agree Mike. It is always nice to see something different out there on the water.
Bismarck should see the water next weekend. :)> | | | Uberpooperscooper Bobo
DKM Bismarck (battle ready)
IJN Yamato (Dockyards IJN Kirishima (Dockyards) IJN Mogami (Dockyards)
IJN Agano (Dockyards) SMS Lutzow (Dockyards) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TreatyCombat/
| |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 19 Jul 2008 11:55 AM |
| Froggy, quick question. I know that the Jean Bart (bulged) gets 6.5 units, and the Richelieu gets 6 units. What is the difference? I though they were both from the same class of ship was there a different design feature in the Jean Bart? Thanks | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 19 Jul 2008 10:00 PM |
| Although I am not sure I am pretty sure that 6.5 units for Jean Bart is a typo. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Gettysburg114th
[ROLES:Veteran]
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1639
| | 20 Jul 2008 03:55 AM |
| Mike,
I think forts are 6.5 units. | | | Uberpooperscooper Bobo
DKM Bismarck (battle ready)
IJN Yamato (Dockyards IJN Kirishima (Dockyards) IJN Mogami (Dockyards)
IJN Agano (Dockyards) SMS Lutzow (Dockyards) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TreatyCombat/
| |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 20 Jul 2008 06:04 AM |
| oh ok. I was wondering why the 2 exact same ships got different numbers of units. | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2988
| | 20 Jul 2008 07:56 AM |
| Boomer
The Treaty ship-list was basically carried over from the BBS, whose ship-list was basically carried over from the MWC.
The MWC ship-list has the listings for the Richelieu class ships as the Richelieu was completed during the war.
She was approx. 95% complete when France was over-run, and she went to Dakar.
While there, there was little work allowed (under the terms of the armistice) to complete her. It was not till after 1942 that she joined the allies, and was sent to the United States for completion/modernization.
So it is arguable whether the Richelieu was completed in Dakar, or in the U.S., but in either case, her displacement would still put her in the 6 unit catagory. But she can be built to either configuration, (as she was at Dakar, with main, and secondaries, but with realtively few anti-aircraft guns), (or as she emerged from her modernization in the U.S., with main, secondaries, and bristling with 40mm bofors, and 20mm oerlikon guns).
Jean Bart is a different animal.
When France was over-run, she was approx. 77% complete, and was sent to Casablanca. She only had one of her main turrets, and none of her 6" triple secondaries installed.
She rode out the war in this state, and did not enter the shipyards for completion until after the war ended.
As finally completed, her displacement puts her in the 6.5 unit catagory.
Mikey | | | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2988
| | 20 Jul 2008 08:19 AM |
| The nice thing about the Richelieu class battleships is that you can build them, and still not look just like the others of the same class.
You could build a Richelieu class battleship, in the original configuration (as laid down), with 5 secondary turrets, and call it Richelieu, Jean Bart, Clemenceau, or Gascoigne.
Or you could build one to the Richelieu's configuration, with only 3 secondary (6" triple) turrets, while in Dakar, and call it any of the four names ( as they were all planned to be the same at that stage of the war).
Or you could build one to the Richelieu's configuration after her modernization in the U.S., and can call her the Richelieu, as she was the only one completed in that configuration.
Or you could build one with a main turret foreward, and a main turret aft, and call her the Gascoigne, as she was the only one to be re-designed to that configuration.
As she falls into the hypothetical catagory (as she was not actually laid down), and the re-design standard displacement was below 40,000 tons, she would still fall into the 6 unit catagory.
Or you could build the bulged Jean Bart as she was completed, with her new anti-aircraft outfit, and get 6.5 units.
Mikey | | | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2988
| | 20 Jul 2008 08:30 AM |
| All
I will try to add to the list as time permits.
But a couple of things that you might find interesting.
As originally laid down, both the King George V, and North Carolina class battleships were to have (3) quad turrets for the main armament. 14" guns.
Mikey | | | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2988
| | 28 Jul 2008 12:24 AM |
| I have added some ships to the list, so make sure you take a look at the original post.
Mikey | | | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 28 Jul 2008 04:01 AM |
| Thanks Mikey. It will be interesting to see some carriers out there. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
Bob Pottle
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1217
| | 30 Jul 2008 05:36 AM |
| Many armored cruisers are less powerful under Treaty rules. They're all listed at 2.5 units but many had 3.0 units under IRCWCC rules. My HMS Minotaur (Defence Class) is being downgraded from its 3.5 IRCWCC units by removing the 1.0 unit stern gun and leaving the 1.5 unit stern gun. Drat!
Bob | | | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2130
| | 30 Jul 2008 02:18 PM |
| Bob, why not go with dual 1.0 unit sterns? Your pump only costs .5 units so you should be good.
Something else to look at in my opinion is dual bow guns. Given the speed on the ACs, they'll probably be chasing the action fairly often and a dual-bow set up has a lot of potential when the fast ships turn...
I'm honestly not sure how I'd set up an AC. Both bow and stern guns have a lot of potential, I guess it would come down to whether I wanted to be offensive or defensive though. I'm really thinking that a pre-dread would be a great deal of fun as well. I'd probably set one of those up with dual sterns and a bow gun, plus a half unit pump.
Those Radetzkys with their dual rudders just look down right nasty. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|