Lempereur1
Kapellmeister
Ok Jutland fans, here is a sneak peak at the very,very soon to be released Jutland Expansion - SHip Pack 01 - US North Sea
Jutland Ship Pack 1 - US North Sea Sneak Peak
- Thread starter Lempereur1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battleship jutland naval us fleet wwi
saddletank
Forum Conscript
Ooooh! I have no idea what ships they are though 
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
The one in the foreground has 6 turrets.....Ooooh! I have no idea what ships they are though
Zakalwe
Member
Ah,
targets.
targets.
I guess thats USS Wyoming since Arkansas only served with GF from July 1918. But look at the 5" gun! Seems like the Sailors are finally able to clean the barrel! Finally a feature we all hoped to see. :clown:
Von der Tann
Schlachtkreuzer
Even if this pack has the US ship in it that served in the North Sea and North Atlantic, I guess a few happy faces will appear in the rough area of Houston, TX...:joy:
Firestorm
Member
Can't wait to have the HSF wipe them out. Will they be as prone to flash explosions as the Brits are?
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
At present, no. There's very much less data to go on with US ships, with only 1 US barbette penetrated in action in WW1 (when Raglan was sunk by Goeben). In that case, while some of the exposed propellant burned, the ship didn't explode. There were also a number of US turret accidents before and after WW1, where propellant burned out the turret but didn't get into the magazines, but that's about it. From what happened to Brit ships, this is a significant difference. Thus, as we stand right now, US ships aren't going to blow up any more often than German ships from a turret penetration.
I gotta admit, initially I just did not care one way or another about the American BB's joining the party. But then I saw those cage masts...
Any interesting battle damage effects for the masts in the offing?
Looking forward to the 4 pipe DD's. USS Ward anyone?
Any interesting battle damage effects for the masts in the offing?
Looking forward to the 4 pipe DD's. USS Ward anyone?
saddletank
Forum Conscript
A historical ship pack. Heheh. I rest my case.
*smug*
They look extremely nice guys, thank you.
*smug*
They look extremely nice guys, thank you.
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
Well, you know, the whole point was to keep the mast standing despite damage
.Ward had a distinguished career, it's true, but she was commissioned after WW1 was over....
It would be interesting. By no means was it certain the US would side with Britain during WWI.I hope HSF get some reinforcements too.
Can be kinda unballanced other way.
vertical
Understood, but a black smudge would just not capture the idea. Holes with twisted bars might be nice. Of course, too many and my FPS would likely fail.Well, you know, the whole point was to keep the mast standing despite damage
Well, I did check Wikipedia before posting and it said "launching on 1 June and commissioning on 24 July 1918."
Was I misled?
In any event, she was the only 4 piper I could think of offhand. I doubt she had any time to do anything.
Bullethead
Storm Eagle Studios
Yes.
Remember that when these comparisons were made, it was in 1918 and the GF was shooting better than it had in 1916. Everybody says the US BBs didn't shoot as well as the RN BBs, but I've found it impossible to determine by how much. Does anybody know? The USN spent a lot of time shooting and was rather proud of its gunnery prior to seeing the GF shoot, so I don't imagine they were as bad as the BCF of 1916. Credible, quantitative input (not opinions) on this subject would be most welcome.
So, at present, the US BBs, over the long run, shoot more or less on a par with the 1916 fleets, in terms of hits / rounds fired. But they get there by a very different route.
In terms of being able to find and hold the range, which is the real measure of accuracy, the US BBs are rather worse than the GF of 1916. US salvos can wander all around near a target for a long time without getting a hit or straddle, and tend to get off the target again quickly after getting on. This is bad accuracy. However, when a US salvo does land on target, it can inflict a large number of hits at once because these US BBs fire full broadsides due to their guns being locked together for elevation. Think Agincourt, only getting on target somewhat more often. These multi-hit salvos can make the US BBs "catch up" quickly to the GF and HSF in terms of hits / rounds fired, even if their overall level of salvo accuracy is much lower.
The result is that the short-term results of US BB shooting are much more variable than that of either the GF or HSF. If they have trouble getting on target, then they just kill vast amounts of fish. OTOH, if they manage to hold the range for several salvos in a row, they can seem like the Wrath of Gawd, which is the effect the US gunners were trying for, after all.
But like I said, this is how it stands now, based on the scant available evidence. If it turns out not to work well in practice, or if somebody can turn up some credible, quantitative comparison with the GF of 1918, we might tweek it in the future. So if you're not happy with the above description, and don't have anything solid to back you up, don't get too upset until you see how it works in the game
HMSWarspite
Member
Whoop whooop whoop . Now hear this, this not a drill. All hands prepare for Action.... Man your battle stations. I repeat this is not a drill.
Steps in to bunker and waits for the fun to start
Steps in to bunker and waits for the fun to start