• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

150 Valued poster

About BBsquid

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Birthday 07/22/1969
  • Portal profile BBsquid

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Honolulu, HI
  • Interests
    Surfing, Hiking (all good in Hawaii), and as much beach time as I can fit in a busy schedule. Avid gamer and historian. Firm believer that Star Trek is far superior to Star Wars, and all cats are better than most dogs. Whatevas.
  • Portal profile BBsquid

Recent Profile Visitors

335 profile views
  1. I see your point now. And totally forgot about the Alaska.
  2. Why a det radius? Hood didnt damage PoW with debris that I'm aware of.
  3. I kept her even after I got Arizona. Love the NM.
  4. Are you implying that Hood--with the proposed refit she never got--could substitute for an Iowa? On the cheap? I thought the Admirals were ridiculously expensive?
  5. I'm with HazeGray on this one. How would an X on the minimap allow for any kind of decent gunnery? How would it be helpful?
  6. thanks much. Awesome stuff. o7!
  7. Ummm...you do realize that AP automatically confers a delayed action fuse, right? The whole 'Armor Piercing' thing? The RN and the HSF both had AP shells at Jutland. The German shells worked well...the British not so much. Hood was lobbying AP at Bismarck....
  8. For the RN, hunting cruisers and commerce patrol/protection was likely their forte. If you accept that *generally* Hood's armor was comparable to Bismarck (far better than sending R & R against her) and Hood was up to the challenge, she still should not have been squared off against a modern BB essentially 1 v 1. I will agree that Hood received a lucky hit; re-run that encounter 15x and you are unlikely to get the same result. As I have seen the notion floated that Hood was the prototype of the fast battleship vice a true battlecruiser, I wonder how she was viewed by the Admiralty on 22 May 1941. was she considered a battleship, or did she draw the short straw simply because they had no other options?
  9. It's funny you say this because when I was in the navy, part of our ASuW doctrine was employing LAMPS Mk III assets for over the horizon targeting. It was pretty well an established element. Aside from countermeasures on the bird itself, I'm pretty sure the navy addressed the SAM threat in their incorporation of said doctrine.
  10. Disagree. The armor is fine for their intended role. As the article stated, their was a tendency to employ them against true battleships.
  11. Do you have anything like that showing the damage to Minneapolis?
  12. (Edit: New Orleans lost her bow, not Portland. Always transpose those two...no idea why.)
  13. During WWII it was. Can't speak to whether or not it persisted post war. IIRC it had something to do with her Measure 22 camo she was sporting initially. There was some artwork on the bulkhead of turret three (I think; been a LONG time) projectile deck that alluded to that.
  14. ^^^^^^^ This. What muswp said about the Wildcat. I think. Most definitely though, Hellcat was designed and drawn up as a mono wing fighter.
  15. Maybe...just maybe...look to see what naval architects, engineers, or heaven for bid, even sailors that know more about ships than a Communications guy that dabbles in SciFi novels. I'm hoping you don't get medical advice from the guy that rotates your tires because hes an 'expert'.