@black_elk Rock On !!!.png
Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread
-
Mainly though, I think it was an odd choice because it was an atypical ship; its lack of armor and torpedo protection were not really so far behind the standards of its day.
There was certain amount of debate within naval circles at the time over the usefulness of armour for carriers. One argument made by the anti-armour side was that the best way to defend a carrier from air attack was to shoot down the enemy’s planes before they got anywhere near the carrier…and that therefore armour should be sacrificed to enable the carrier to carry more fighter planes, which in turn would provide a better combat air patrol around the ship.
-
@CWO:
Mainly though, I think it was an odd choice because it was an atypical ship; its lack of armor and torpedo protection were not really so far behind the standards of its day.
There was certain amount of debate within naval circles at the time over the usefulness of armour for carriers. One argument made by the anti-armour side was that the best way to defend a carrier from air attack was to shoot down the enemy’s planes before they got anywhere near the carrier…and that therefore armour should be sacrificed to enable the carrier to carry more fighter planes, which in turn would provide a better combat air patrol around the ship.
True enough, though those debates were primarily about deck armor rather than side armor or torpedo defenses. And at those times, for the Pacific context, the non-armored-deck camp (whose approach was followed by both US and Japanese designers) was probably right, as the British armored-deck carriers didn’t really come into their own until the last, most-intense, Japanese kamikaze waves… and then only by switching to mostly US carrier planes and packing more of them on than their carriers were designed for…
-
I’m wondering about the battleships. Why go with the Pennsylvania class? That class includes the USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona, both commissioned in 1916. Seems like kind of an old model of BB to go with. I would have went with the North Carolina or South Dakota class if not the Iowa class. Then again, an older battleship like that will make for more variety.
This suggestion would allow the US to have an early war battleship. Of her 16 or so starting battleships, they all more or less looked like this Pennsylvania class. The OOB unit and the FMG choice are very close making them both too similar. The Iowa and Missouri class are too similar looking
The new pieces should be different from OOB wherever possible. IMO
The Essex class carrier looks too much like the OOB piece. If you had the Lexington it would be a different looking unit and convey an early war looking unit. Compare the Essex to the Enterprise….the difference is negligible.
-
IL I don’t disagree with you on that they should be different but I think FMG’s pieces may end up being superior to Wizards of the Craps. I plan on replacing mine with theirs. I think the OOB pieces will look inferior to FMGS. We shall see.
-
This is true, but i know many will want to use both and craft technology rules to support them:
example: early war starting battleships would be 4-4-2 and take one hit, but newly built battleships would take two hits
or
early war battleships on a d12 system hit at 7-6 and move 2, but with technology the new class of battleships “Iowa” are 8-8 units
And this would be different by nation.
BY just making a class that looks different, you just made use of not only FMG units, but the OOB.
The alternative is to just dump the OOB pieces? NO. The colors will match so the differences is detail are not that big since we are dealing with small scale.
Also, FMG should wherever possible strive to distance itself from using the same types of units that are OOB. I understand in some cases this may not be possible ( e.g. the German tactical bomber must be the ju87)
Offering a different looking unit adds to the uniqueness of these pieces.
-
@Imperious:
I’m wondering about the battleships. Why go with the Pennsylvania class? That class includes the USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona, both commissioned in 1916. Seems like kind of an old model of BB to go with. I would have went with the North Carolina or South Dakota class if not the Iowa class. Then again, an older battleship like that will make for more variety.
This suggestion would allow the US to have an early war battleship. Of her 16 or so starting battleships, they all more or less looked like this Pennsylvania class. The OOB unit and the FMG choice are very close making them both too similar. The Iowa and Missouri class are too similar looking
The new pieces should be different from OOB wherever possible. IMO
The Essex class carrier looks too much like the OOB piece. If you had the Lexington it would be a different looking unit and convey an early war looking unit. Compare the Essex to the Enterprise….the difference is negligible.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s true at all; now if you compare the (original) Wasp to the Yorktown class (which included the Enterprise, the original Hornet and the original Yorktown) there you see nearly identical ships; as I said earlier, the Wasp was just a Yorktown class shortened a little so as to squeak the US total carrier tonnage in under the treaty limits. But I don’t agree that the Essex looks too much like the Wasp. I mean, yeah, OK they’re both flat-tops with superstructures… but the superstructures aren’t the same, the deck shape isn’t the same, the elevator arrangement isn’t the same, the Essex has the superfiring twin 5"/38’s on either side of the superstructure, and it’s significantly bigger. And the last is key to me: if FMG’s ships are going to be a little bigger to better show some detail, I’d rather them start with the biggest, best ships in each category and use the smaller, less distinct-looking oob units for smaller ships than have FMG make larger mini’s of what should be smaller ships!
I think the same principle should go fo everything FMG makes: if the pieces will be slightly bigger (and we know they’ll be the best, most detailed plastic mini’s in this scale), he should do the biggest and best units in each category…) that means Tiger, Pershing & JS2 tanks, Iowa & Yamato BB’s, Essex & Taiho CV’s, etc.
I do think it’s a shame that the oob pieces are an odd mixture of early and late units, but their detail isn’t that great, so if FMG’s will be slightly bigger and clearly better, they should go for the top-end units in every category, and we can overlook the tiny details where the oob units aren’t consistently “early war” in their look, just was we overlook their odd mixture now! Hopefullly, we can then get Coach to do a slightly smaller series of consistently early-war units (like he’s going to do for German tanks, etc.) I’d rather have FMG do a consistent set; since his pieces will be te best, he should mould the best models in every category.
-
The yamato is a terrible choice for Japanese BB. They only made two of these and the other 18 or so battleships looked like the Kongo or Nagato
It would be a tragic repeat of a mistake. The classic Japanese battleship is the Pagoda looking ships. The Kongo is the only choice. The OOB Yamato could be an advanced BB design.
In terms of japanese carriers I think most people would like the Kaga, Akagi, or something that looks like a typical japanese carrier.
Taiho is a terrible choice, it looks like every other carrier by UK or USA.
But I don’t agree that the Essex looks too much like the Wasp
In 1/3000 scale most ships like these are too similar from oob. Compare the OOB to any choice. Now since they look similar, the FMG should make a distinct carrier choice.
I think it would look nice to have different looking carriers ( both OOB and FMG) as American carriers for aesthetics. But if you made another OOB “looking piece” the wow factor suffers since these become just like copies of OOB with better detail and that is not the most bang for the buck.
-
I want the T-34 for russia and the spitfire for UK. Those units were the icons for those countrys and I want to see them done right.FMG will do that it appears. I see your point of view IL. I am wishing they would have done the Mark 5 for Germany.Beggars can’t be choosers.
-
Well the spitfire must be the British fighter. No question. Some of the choices are obviously to be made.
The British battleship should be King George V, though i prefer Rodney/Nelson. The Royal Oak OOB UK battleship was an old battleship like the Pennsylvania BTW.
-
@Imperious:
The yamato is a terrible choice for Japanese BB. They only made two of these and the other 18 or so battleships looked like the Kongo or Nagato
It would be a tragic repeat of a mistake. The classic Japanese battleship is the Pagoda looking ships. The Kongo is the only choice. The OOB Yamato could be an advanced BB design.
In terms of japanese carriers I think most people would like the Kaga, Akagi, or something that looks like a typical japanese carrier.
Taiho is a terrible choice, it looks like every other carrier by UK or USA.
But I don’t agree that the Essex looks too much like the Wasp
In 1/3000 scale most ships like these are too similar from oob. Compare the OOB to any choice. Now since they look similar, the FMG should make a distinct carrier choice.
I think it would look nice to have different looking carriers ( both OOB and FMG) as American carriers for aesthetics. But if you made another OOB “looking piece” the wow factor suffers since these become just like copies of OOB with better detail and that is not the most bang for the buck.
Yes, but you’re overlooking the fact that the Yamato was the only NEW BB the Japanese built. All the others were just attempts to spruce up their obsolete equipment; and no, it’s not 18, it’s only 10, and the Japanese were planning on building 4 of the Yamato’s until Midway forced them to rethink their priorities… no Japanese BB class had more than 4 in it. This means that the Yamato’s would have been tied with the Kongo’s for largest class and would have made up over 80% of the total tonnage of the IJN BB fleet within a year of Midway, if Midway hadn’t been such a disaster.
Neither Kaga nor Akagi can be said to be typical in any way; like the Lexington’s, they were conversions of ships otherwise slated for scrapping due to the Washington Treaty… both were a one-off (not even the same class as each other, either!) And neither was a particularly handsome ship… putting all this together makes both of them absolutely a TERRIBLE choice for FMG’s lone Japanese CV mold. Yes, the Taiho was a unique ship, but it at least points to the Japanese ideal for what they would have built more of if they had the chance! The only Japanese carrier that could be fairly said to be “typical” would be the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu series, which weren’t identical, but were cousins if not sisters… and they were planning to build many more Unryu’s. But these were smallish and unimpressive ships. The Shokaku-Zuikaku twins would be much better choices if you insist on “typical.” But with Japanese warships, “typical” is not easy to determine, since they have so few large classes of ships and NOT A ONE large class of large ships!
-
Now at least the Lexington has the advantage of being a handsome ship that would look great given the FMG treatment. I still prefer the Essex, though. Like I said, it’s the ship that won the war! How much more pivotal could a ship be! And with 24 of them made, we’re talking about a ship that was made in greater #'s than all the other carrier classes in the world combined up to that time!
The Pennsylvannia class would be a terrible choice for FMG, too! I seem to remember you yourself, IL, once referring to the US Old BB’s as obscolete “death traps” unworthy to float on the same ocean as the Bismark, and though I thought at the time that your rhetoric was a bit extreme, there is a reason why none of the US Old BB’s were ever to fulfill their original mission of sea control. Note that at Guadalcanal, when it was a close-run thing, it was 2 US new BB’s that were sent in to save the day (Washington, a North Carolina Class, and South Dakota, first of its class) and no US old BB’s were even sent into the theatre for the entire length of the campaign, when things were really on the line! If FMG must do something not oob, he should do a new BB of some kind. But why not an Iowa? We could just call the oob ones a “South Dakota”, since it’s indistinct enough to fill the part, and will probably be almost exactly the right size in comparison to FMG’s Iowa. Let Coach or TT do an “old BB” and then we’d have the best of both worlds!
But my bottom line is that FMG should just simply do the best in every category that was fielded in #'s.
-
The Japanese also built the Musashi which was commissioned in 1942. It was the second of the Yamato class.
-
Yes, but you’re overlooking the fact that the Yamato was the only NEW BB the Japanese built. All the others were just attempts to spruce up their obsolete equipment; and no, it’s not 18, it’s only 10, and the Japanese were planning on building 4 of the Yamato’s until Midway forced them to rethink their priorities… no Japanese BB class had more than 4 in it. This means that the Yamato’s would have been tied with the Kongo’s for largest class and would have made up over 80% of the total tonnage of the IJN BB fleet within a year of Midway, if Midway hadn’t been such a disaster.
But the Kongo class looks very close in design ( they look) much more like the other classes, and Yamato looks like something completely different:
Nagato Class
Ise Class
Fuso Class
This is the majority of the types of Japanese ships that did the dirty work. Yamato and Musashi are totally different and only account for 2 actual ships and lastly, where used sparingly until late in war. Most of the battles involved a typical Pagoda style BB that made Japanese ships interesting. You can’t base a sculpt on what could have been arguing for 4 ships, when only 3 full ships and hull 798 of a forth were made. The sculpt must reflect the ships that actually mostly fought in these battles. Again Kongo looks alot like the other three classes, while having 6 yamato’s on the map looks ridiculous. The OOB BB should be the tech upgrade for super battleships.
Neither Kaga nor Akagi can be said to be typical in any way; like the Lexington’s, they were conversions of ships otherwise slated for scrapping due to the Washington Treaty… both were a one-off (not even the same class as each other, either!) And neither was a particularly handsome ship… putting all this together makes both of them absolutely a TERRIBLE choice for FMG’s lone Japanese CV mold. Yes, the Taiho was a unique ship, but it at least points to the Japanese ideal for what they would have built more of if they had the chance! The only Japanese carrier that could be fairly said to be “typical” would be the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu series, which weren’t identical, but were cousins if not sisters… and they were planning to build many more Unryu’s. But these were smallish and unimpressive ships. The Shokaku-Zuikaku twins would be much better choices if you insist on “typical.” But with Japanese warships, “typical” is not easy to determine, since they have so few large classes of ships and NOT A ONE large class of large ships!
Shokaku is what the OOB looks like, though it says its the Shinano. The japanese carrier choice. This choice should convey the classic look of a japanese carrier with a very small superstructure and the classic pylons under the flight deck in front and or back.
Soryu is good because its got the pylons
Ryujo is good because the superstructure is almost non-existent.
Akagi is great because its got both: small superstructure and large pylons….when you think of Japanese carrier thats the one.
http://combinedfleet.com/akagi01.jpgTaiho looks like a British carrier it has no distinction as being a quintessential “Japanese looking” carrier. it looks like a standard carrier.
http://combinedfleet.com/taiho01.jpg -
The Japanese also built the Musashi which was commissioned in 1942. It was the second of the Yamato class.
OK, typo, it should read “…that the Yamato was the only NEW BB class the Japanese built…”
Anyway, that makes my point. The only other BB’s even on the drawing board in Japan were essentially “super-Yamato’s” (the A-150 design) or “baby-Yamato’s” (the B65 design… and seeing as the Japanese planned for 4 of them and had the 3 halfway built before converting it into a carrier after Midway, the Yamato is as close as it gets to a “typical new” Japanese battleship, as otherwise atypical as it may have been by world-wide standards. And I think FMG should concentrate on new stuff, not old stuff. Let Coach do old stuff and we can use oob stuff to fill in for old stuff until then…
My picks, based on by “DO THE NEW!” principle are:
US:
Tank 1: M36 (Pershing as second choice)
Tank 2: SHERMAN (LATE WAR!)
Transport: Liberty Ship
SS: GATO CLASS
DD: SUMNER CLASS (Fletcher as second choice)
CA: BALTIMORE CLASS (Wichita as second choice, then Cleveland, then Brooklyn)
CV: ESSEX CLASS (Lexington as second choice)
BB: IOWA CLASS (South Dakota as second choice, then North Carolina)
Bomber: B-29 (B-24 as second choice)
Tac: TBM/TBF AVENGER
Truck:GMC 6x6
Air Trans: C-47 DAKOTA
Artillery: 155 MM LONG TOM
Infantry 1: STANDARD W/ M1
Infantry 2: AIRBORNE W/ M3 (folding-stock M1 carbine as second choice; Thompson was rather heavy/ unwieldy for airborne troops…)
-
I seem to remember you yourself, IL, once referring to the US Old BB’s as obscolete “death traps” unworthy to float on the same ocean as the Bismark, and though I thought at the time that your rhetoric was a bit extreme, there is a reason why none of the US Old BB’s were ever to fulfill their original mission of sea control.
The point of this was to illustrate the obvious advantage that Bismarck had in speed ( 30+ knots vs. 21 knots) and range and fire control of her guns vs. old ww1 style garbage fire control and toilet paper thin coffin battleships. Bismarck could just maintain range and pick off every ship in battleship row one after another… it would be a joke. Those old BB’s were death traps. Timerover51 was trying to downplay Bismarck and make it seem that any old US battleship was the same as Bismarck, simply because he hates the axis and no other reason. This is his Achilles heal in arguments because he always makes it seem that axis was totally inferior at all times in all things. He is also the guy who claimed that no people of German heritage helped work on the Atomic bomb, when most of the people who worked on it were of German decent. He basically hates Germans.
Note that at Guadalcanal, when it was a close-run thing, it was 2 US new BB’s that were sent in to save the day (Washington, a North Carolina Class, and South Dakota, first of its class) and no US old BB’s were even sent into the theatre for the entire length of the campaign, when things were really on the line! If FMG must do something not oob, he should do a new BB of some kind. But why not an Iowa? We could just call the oob ones a “South Dakota”, since it’s indistinct enough to fill the part, and will probably be almost exactly the right size in comparison to FMG’s Iowa. Let Coach or TT do an “old BB” and then we’d have the best of both worlds!
The old battleships had alot of action in these campaigns as well. The choice should be based on:
- which look conveyed the majority of the Battleships in the war ( in battleship row just about every ship looked like the Pennsylvania)
- which battleship has a look different than OOB
- avoid late-war units. It does not look right in a 1940/41 game if you got a sculpt that came out in 1942-45.
-
Shokaku is what the OOB looks like, though it says its the Shinano. The japanese carrier choice. This choice should convey the classic look of a japanese carrier with a very small superstructure and the classic pylons under the flight deck in front and or back
You think the oob looks like a Shokaku? Are you smoking something? (Just kiding :-D)
Well, OK, Ill concede that it is a little indistinct; I think the oob Yamato looks like a hybrid Kongo/Yamato, with its disproportionately pagoda-esque superstructure so maybe I should give the oob Shinanos another look. But in any case, to the extent that this is true, it actually makes my case that the oob pieces can fill in for more common early-war types, especially since, (AND THIS WILL BE KEY!) they will be a little bit smaller, since FMG has said hes making his a little bigger to show more detail. If you convince FMG to make a bunch of smaller/ early-war units that are all physically a little bigger than the oob pieces, it would look absolutely RIDICULOUS to then use the OOB pieces as super versions of bigger and nicer-looking typical pieces. It makes far more sense to have FMG do all the best and biggest, and well at least have one consistent-looking set that is consistent. Then we can use oob for typicals as a stop-gap and Coach can do a consistent early-war set. Then wed have two consistent sets and one inconsistent oob set that we can gradually dispense with, instead of 2 inconsistent ones… which then would make it almost impossible for yet a third attempt to have even a chance at consistency!
FMG has already picked a set of mostly the “best and biggest” for Italy and Germany; it would be a big mistake for him to then give the allies nothing by obsolete “death traps” (in your own words). Yes the axis had the jump on the allies in new equipment at war’s beginning, but why stick them with nothing but “garbage fire control” (in your own words) in their tanks and BB’s for the rest of the war. The whole dynamic of both A&A and WW2 is that the allies have their responses coming, in production, technology, numbers, etc., but will they get there in time… that’s the whole drama. Stick the US with obsolete stuff and you’re basically predetermining that the cavalry will never come… and then where’s the drama! The outcome is over, the “evil empires” have won and they might as well start learning German and Japanese…
-
Shokaku
The OOB piece for the japanese CV look like the first picture, though they are supposed to look like the second picture. Also, both carriers look like classic UK or US carriers.
The OOB piece Yamato looks nothing like a Kongo or Nagato.
I made no claims about the size of the pieces, only that they are similar to OOB.
Also, i am not interested in looking at only OLD UNITS. In the case of the Battleships this might be the case. But your choices are all units that were mostly used in late-war and you got no early war units. FMG did not pick the biggest or baddest. If they did the Me-262 would be used and the JU-87 would not since its early war.
The biggest and baddest does not work at all. The choices must reflect the majority of the “LOOK” used in most of the units during the war and also not choices that didn’t fight till late war, since many games start in 1940-42.
For USA the Sherman is grudgingly acknowledged. Pershing is a joke choice on the other hand.
P-51 is a good choice and the plane choices are just fine.
The ship choices are fine as long as they don’t look anything like the OOB units. This is where the Pennsylvania comes in. All your choices look like a do over of OOB and OOB got it wrong.
The German choices have a mix of early and midwar units. Your list is like 99% late war. Not good.
-
Look, your fundamental argument against the Yamato was that it was the other four Japanese BB classes that “did the dirty work…” yet you want to stick the US with a BB class that didn’t! Check your facts on the old BB’s: they didn’t get within a thousand miles of Guadalcanal until the battle was long over, and even in the late war were used almost exclusively as floating fire-support for amphibious landings, never as decisive instruments of sea control, whereas Adm. Willis Lee’s 2 new BB’s ended up being the final straw that caused the IJN to give up on Guadalcanal when his last-ditch “ride to the rescue” resulted in the loss of the 2nd Kongo class BB in 2 days. The only exception to the rule that the US old-BB’s were on the virtual sidelines was Surigao Strait, and that’s because the Japaneses managaged to break into what had essentially become a rear echelon area as a result of Halsey’s recklessness.
I utterly reject the notion that we should restrict the combatants to “early war” types, because it wasn’t necessarily the “early war” types that won the war or even that were used in the largest numbers. (Again, 24 Essex class carriers! Along with dozens of Baltimores and Clevelands and hundreds of Fletchers and Sumners…) The Panther wasn’t used in numbers until 1943 and the two Tigers that FMG has already done are clearly late-war models! If your argument is that FMG should do what was most numerous or typical over the overall course of the whole war, then you’d have to give the US all new ships classes, since the numbers of the new ship classes dwarfs anything they had in the beginning… or for that matter dwarfs what anybody else had in the end…
And no, the Pershing was NOT a joke. The US Army Ordnance big-wigs probably made a big mistake in not giving it a higher priority, but why should FMG force players to repeat that mistake? (Who are, after all, armchair generals exploring alternate history possibilities by the nature of the game…) The Pershing had its pro’s and con’s, but against an army equipped with 6,000 Panthers the US easily could have and should have responded with at least 6,000 Pershings if they valued the lives of their tank crews, even if it meant a few less Shermans.
-
The ship choices are fine as long as they don’t look anything like the OOB units. This is where the Pennsylvania comes in. All your choices look like a do over of OOB and OOB got it wrong.
Actually, aside from the BB category, none of my choices need look much like oob. Sumner with its twin turrets has a very different sillouhette than the Fletcher. All of the new-cruisers, like my recomendation of the Baltimore, with their flush decks, couldn’t look more different than oob old Portland. With BB’s, all the new ones look much alike, but I’m against FMG doing any of the old ones for all the reasons already noted, plus FMG’s will very likely be distinctive from oob just on size and quality if nothing else. My insistence on a late-war Sherman variant is, I think, a brilliant compromise, since if gives the opportunity for a radically different hull shape and the necessity of a radically different turret, so that it manages to be distinctive from oob without being “rare” in the least. Considering that even in the “rarest” category, the new-BB’s, we’re dealing with a US fleet of new-BB’s at the end of the war that was exactly the same size as the Japanese old-BB fleet at the war’s beginning… well, I don’t think any of my suggestions are radical in the least!
I just don’t get your anti-late-war-equipment-for-the-allies bias. Yes, the scenerios start in 1939 or 1940, but by the time the game has gone a few turns you’re no longer there, chronologically, and the fact that the allies need time to get their economies in gear and build up their forces is the whole point, the whole dynamic. The US should be given FMG ship upgrades that are “1942-era” because that’s when the US fought the war (note that they didn’t get into it until the last month of 1941!) and because that is what they won the war with.
You mention the Me 262… not built in significant numbers; the Me109 and FW 190 were the main German fighters from A-Z and with their late-war engine upgrades stayed reasonably competitive. Me 262 is perfect for a tech upgrade. One could argue that the same is true of the Pershing; I concede the Pershing’s rarity, which is why I’ve relegated it to 3rd choice and put forward the M36 Jackson and late-war Sherman as compromises. Note though, that it would have been easier technologically for the US to mass-produce Pershings than it was for the Germans to mass-produce Me 262’s… or for that matter Tiger II’s which the Germans churned out in fairly low #'s.
-
Look, your fundamental argument against the Yamato was that it was the other four Japanese BB classes that “did the dirty work…” yet you want to stick the US with a BB class that didn’t! Check your facts on the old BB’s: they didn’t get within a thousand miles of Guadalcanal until the battle was long over, and even in the late war were used almost exclusively as floating fire-support for amphibious landings, never as decisive instruments of sea control, whereas Adm. Willis Lee’s 2 new BB’s ended up being the final straw that caused the IJN to give up on Guadalcanal when his last-ditch “ride to the rescue” resulted in the loss of the 2nd Kongo class BB in 2 days. The only exception to the rule that the US old-BB’s were on the virtual sidelines was Surigao Strait, and that’s because the Japaneses managed to break into what had essentially become a rear echelon area as a result of Halsey’s recklessness.
Its not only that, its because the other Japanese BB classes all look alike and the Yamato is a one off ship.
why in hell would you represent 2 ships that look nothing like the other 15+
You got like 92% that look like Kongo and 8% that look like yamato. You got like 90% of the types of Japanese BB that fought in most of the battles vs. 2 ships that fought in the end of the war is less than satisfactory missions.
Its clear that the Yamato is not a Pagoda style ship, yet this is the standard looking Japanese battleship.
As far as the American ships look at the service records of all the non- Iowa, Missouri
Florida class
* Displacement: 21,800 tons
* Armament: 10 × 12 in (305 mm) (5x2), 16 × 5 in (127 mm) (16x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS Florida and USS Utah
* Commissioned: both in 1911
* Fate: Florida scrapped in 1932, Utah became target ship (AG-16) in 1931, sunk at Pearl Harbor in 1941USS Wyoming
Wyoming class* Displacement: 27,200 tons
* Armament: 12 × 12 in (305 mm) (6x2), 21 × 5 in (127 mm) (21x1), two 3-inch (3x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS Wyoming and USS Arkansas
* Commissioned: both in 1912
* Fate: Wyoming became a training ship (AG-17) in 1931, decommissioned in 1947. Arkansas sunk at Operation Crossroads in 1946USS New York
New York class* Displacement: 27,200 tons
* Armament: 10 × 14 in (356 mm) (5x2), 21 5-inch (21x1), two 3-inch (2x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS New York and USS Texas
* Commissioned: both in 1914
* Fate: New York sunk as target in 1948, Texas preserved as a memorial 1948Standard type
Main article: Standard type battleship
USS Oklahoma
Nevada class* Displacement: 27,500 tons
* Armament: 10 × 14 in (356 mm) (2x3, 2x2), 21 × 5 in (127 mm) (21x1), 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 20 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma
* Commissioned: both in 1916
* Fate: Nevada sunk as target 1948; Oklahoma sunk at Pearl Harbor in 1941, raised and stripped of salvageable parts, sunk in route to scrapping 1947USS Arizona
Pennsylvania class* Displacement: 31,400 tons
* Armament: 12 × 14 in (356 mm) (4x3), 14 × 5 in (127 mm) (14x1), 4 × 3 in (76 mm) (4x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona
* Commissioned: both in 1916
* Fate: Pennsylvania sunk after Operation Crossroads in 1946, Arizona destroyed at Pearl Harbor in 1941, designated as a memorial.USS Idaho
New Mexico class* Displacement: 32,000 tons
* Armament: 12 × 14 in (356 mm) (4x3), 14 × 5 in (127 mm) (14x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 3: USS New Mexico, USS Mississippi, and USS Idaho
* Commissioned: New Mexico in 1918, Mississippi in 1917 and Idaho in 1919
* Fate: sold for scrap, New Mexico & Idaho in 1947. Mississippi became trials ship (AG-128) in 1946, scrapped in 1956Tennessee class
USS California* Displacement: 32,000 tons
* Armament: 12 × 14 in (356 mm) (4x3), 14 × 5 in (127 mm) (14x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS Tennessee, and USS California
* Commissioned: Tennessee in 1920, California in 1921
* Fate: both decommissioned 1947, sold for scrap 1959Colorado class
USS Maryland* Displacement: 32,600 tons
* Armament: 8 × 16 in (406 mm) (4x2), 12 × 5 in (127 mm) (12x1), 8 × 3 in (76 mm) (8x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 21 knots
* Ships in class: 4: USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS Washington, and USS West Virginia
* Commissioned: Maryland in 1921, Colorado and West Virginia in 1923, Washington not completed and sunk as target
* Fate: Remaining three decommissioned 1947 and sold for scrap 1959.South Dakota class
* Displacement: 43,200 tons
* Armament: 12 × 16 in (406 mm) (4x3), 16 × 6 in (152 mm) (16x1), 8 × 3 in (76 mm) (8x1), 2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
* Armor:
* Speed: 23 knots
* Ships in class: 6: USS South Dakota, USS Indiana, USS Montana, USS North Carolina, USS Iowa, and USS Massachusetts
* Commissioned: None commissioned
* Fate: All cancelled prior to launch in 1923; scrapped on slipFast battleships
USS Washington
North Carolina class* Displacement: 35,000 tons
* Armament: 9 × 16 in (406 mm) (3x3), 20 × 5 in (127 mm) (10x2), 16 x 1.1 inch AA (4x4)
* Armor: 11in Belt / 7in Deck
* Speed: 28 knots
* Ships in class: 2: USS North Carolina and USS Washington
* Commissioned: 1941
* Fate: North Carolina preserved as memorial 1965; Washington scrapped 1962USS Massachusetts
South Dakota class* Displacement: 38,000 tons
* Armament: 9 × 16 in (406 mm) (3x3), 20 (16 on 'South Dakota) x 5 inch (10 or 8 x 2), up to 40 x 40mm AA (17x4), up to 76 x 20 mm AA (76x1), 3 aircraft
* Armor: 12in Belt / 7.5in Deck
* Speed: 27 knots
* Ships in class: 4: USS South Dakota, USS Indiana, USS Massachusetts, and USS Alabama
* Commissioned: 1942
* Fate: South Dakota and Indiana scrapped 1960;Alabama preserved as memorial 1964 Massachusetts preserved as memorial 1965USS Missouri refuels (1980s refit)[3]
Iowa class* Displacement: 48,500 tons
* Armament: 9 × 16 in (406 mm) (3x3), 20 × 5 in (127 mm) (10x2), 80 x 40mm AA (20x4), 49 x 20 mm AA (49x1) (1980s modification added 32 x Tomahawk and 16 x Harpoon missiles and 4 x Phalanx CIWS, and deleted 8 5-in guns and all other light anti-aircraft gun systems)
* Armor: 12in Belt / 8in Deck
* Speed: 33 knots
* Ships in class: 6: USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, USS Wisconsin, USS Illinois, and USS Kentucky
* Commissioned: Four commissioned; first Iowa 1943; last Wisconsin 1944.
* Fate: Iowa in mothball fleet at Suisun Bay, California; Missouri decommissioned for the second time in 1992, preserved as memorial at Pearl Harbor Hawaii since May 4, 1998 and is maintained by the non-profit USS Missouri Memorial Association; Wisconsin preserved as memorial Norfolk, Virginia; New Jersey preserved as memorial in Camden, NJ; Illinois cancelled and scrapped on slip; Kentucky launched 1950, not completed, scrapped 1958.I utterly reject the notion that we should restrict the combatants to “early war” types, because it wasn’t necessarily the “early war” types that won the war or even that were used in the largest numbers.
Thats fine so do I. I also reject using late war ships exclusively as you seem to prefer. I prefer using ships that were used most often, where made the most in terms of quantity, where used in most battles during most of the war, and have a look that is common to the basic profile of what most units where used in the war.
You want to restrict to only the biggest late war units. The actual choices must follow the pattern of what was typical. In Iowa class only Missouri and Iowa were used with frequency.
Of the South Dakota class, id say three of these four ships were used frequently. The Washington class had two ships
So of the fast battleships: 7 of these saw decent action.
If you look at the other 10 battleships: they all had war long careers. Based on the history i now feel the West Virginia should be the new selection, not the Pennsylvania. The distinctive feature in all these battleships is the tower on top of the superstructure. It is somewhat similar to the Royal Oak ( UK OOB BB sculpt)
USS Nevada
USS Pennsylvania
USS New Mexico
USS Mississippi
USS Idaho
USS Tennessee
USS California
USS Colorado
USS Maryland
USS West Virginia
Suggested Topics
