Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Macsen1961

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

298 profile views
  1. Might I suggest that if you are running a highly maneuverable class like a destroyer or cruiser and you are changing course, how about turning away from the battleship running parallel to you. Even reversing engines is not going to prevent a collision.
  2. Macsen1961

    Submarines in game

    its also inthe time line of the game
  3. Okay, in co-op, random, clan submarines would be next to useless. However, after playing the Halloween scenarios, it seems that submarines would be good in a similar set up, with the players having to hit a convoy of either warships or merchies. If this were adopted, players could start out with the following boats: US: S class, followed by the Gato then Baleo. Germany: The type 7, then eventually earning the type X, if someone in development got really crazy, the type XXII could be included. UK: River class subs Japan: Start with the KD and work up to the J boats These subs would be limited to scenario or clan play only. Just a thought
  4. Macsen1961

    I can't play this game due to toxic players.

    In WoT it is arty, here it is carriers. And people getting pissy at the fact that carriers are in the game dont seem to consider that a carrier really cant defend itself when found by a surface unit. What would the grippers do if the developers decided that in any game with cv's penalties were applied to matches were the cv did not survive do to ship v. ship combat?
  5. Macsen1961

    I can't play this game due to toxic players.

    I have had people [edited] because my fighters were shotdown and I made one air to air kill during the whole game, and been reported. Guess what? Who cares, it is just a game. People get pissy. As far as the reports go, how many times has some one from the game contacted you because you were reported? Again, who cares? Why do you care? Is any of their attitude, posts, or anything else going to affect the course of time, fate, or take one day off your life?
  6. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    You keep neglecting one simple fact. If the torpedo attack had not damaged the Bismark's rudder, there would have been no surface action in which she was sunk, the British surface units would not have caught her. At the time she was torpedoed, she was hours away from Luftwaffe air support. Adm. Tovey made it clear that the only reason she was caught was due to the rudder damage and the fact that damage caused her to be steaming TOWARD the British surface units. A fact you seem to feel is incidental, not important, or not significant. Almost as if you seem to think that the Royal navy would have continued to chase the Bismark, engaged her while at the same time being attacked by the Luftwaffe, if they would have been able to catch her at all. And I did not say the Graf Zeppelin would have been a game changer, I said it was argued that it might have been. In this case, I would point to a simple matter of logistics. Any German surface unit would have had to run the coast of Norway, then one of three possible exits to the Atlantic, all of which were patrolled. The only ports the Germans had to the Atlantic were the ones they captured in France, making a surface fleet support problematic at best. The surface raiders that got out prior to the war were dependent on supply ships propositioned, and well, even Hitler should have figured out that eventually they would have been exhausted. The German High Seas fleet had no ports outside of Germany, Britain had ports in Canada, The Bahamas, Gibraltar, the African Continent, and a large base in the Falklands capable of even major repairs and refits. And the ports the Germans had access to in France had their own problems, the primary one being sabotage. The only possible game changer the Germans were working on were the Walter Turbine Uboats, three completed construction, none saw combat. And honestly, for those to have made any real impact on the war, they would have had to hit the water in 1941 and by 1942 been the main boat in the Uboat arm. And if you cant understand why a hydrogen peroxide burning engine on a Uboat was significant, google it.
  7. Macsen1961

    More Reality

    Uh, considering the fact that the two forces never actually saw each other at Coral Sea or Midway, the map would be so big as to be overwhelming, I mean they were well over 200 miles apart at the opening.
  8. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    What strawman? You are belittling the efforts of a force that you clearly have no knowledge of, you clearly do not know the facts concerning the sinking of the Bismark, and even if all you learned was from the movie, which fairly quickly disposed of your arguments, you still fail to grasp the truth. I am a student of history, I have degrees in history, primarily military history, and naval history is a passion of mine. As far as carrier operations in the Atlantic, I have seen and heard some who have made the argument that had Germany launched their carrier, the entire war would have gone differently. Getting back to the Bogue, I am still at a loss as to why the developers included the class in the first place. 1) even compared to the Japanese light carriers, it carried a smaller air group, to the point of being laughable. 2) The developers completely ignored the Casablanca class carriers which, though small, were designed from the keel up as a carrier, not some fast conversion on some other hull.
  9. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    I suggest you read https://defenceindepth.co/2017/10/13/british-naval-aviation-in-world-war-ii-escort-carriers/ The simple truth is that the war in the Atlantic did not get, nor has gotten in the years since, any of the notoriety as the Pacific did, and the above article is a hell of a lot shorter than the paper I did on the subject for one of my graduate classes. Suffice it to say that the Royal Navy pioneered navy aviation, pioneered use of carrier groups to deal with the uboat threat, and your constant minimizing the impact of the Royal Navy in this respect is bordering on ignorance. As for the swordfish attack on the Bismark, even the commanders of the ships trying to catch her admitted that had she not been damaged to the point she was, they would not have caught her, and I will explain why, since you clearly have no clue. The late afternoon attack from the Ark Royal was actually the second on the Bismark, the first scored no major hits, as her torpedo armor was able to shrug off those hits, and during that attack, a torpedo struck her near the rudder while she was in a hard turn to avoid the torpedoes. This jammed her rudder in a turning position, which in turn made it impossible for her to steer a course toward the French coast and the protective air cover of the Luftwaffe, and she would have made that easily had she not been damaged. She was too fast for the Royal Navy to catch her any other way, and there was no way the Royal Navy would have engaged the Bismark while trying to deal with attacks by the Luftwaffe. And you seem to have forgotten, the Bismark had already sunk the HMS Hood, and forced the HMS Prince of Wales to withdrawal from the action in which the Hood was sank. And while Adm. Lütjens had slowed to conserve fuel, she still had enough of a lead to make it to the Luftwaffe air umbrella before the King George V caught her. In fact, the only reason she was caught was simple, the damage to her rudder was so severe that she ended up sailing toward the pursuing British heavy units while crews tried to repair the damage. Admiral Tovey said as much in his after action report, which included the statement that he was about to order his force to break off the chase when the word came that Bismark had been hit, her new course confirmed by coastal command aircraft, and her condition as being crippled was also confirmed. And the Admiralty had made it clear, under no circumstances was he to risk his force once the Bismark had German air cover. Now, while I will admit that it was only by pure, blind luck that the torpedo even hit Bismark where it did which, as it turned out, to be the only area in which she (or any ship for that matter built like her) was vulnerable. It must also be said that Lütjens might have been unduly biased in his opinion that his ship could handle anything the Royal Navy could throw at her.
  10. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    I didnt, and havent minimized those men on the ships that fired on Bismark, I am saying, there would have been no way that they could have caught her and brought her to gun had those obsolete, fabric covered biplanes had not crippled her first. And while you are so adament about the failure of Royal Navy carrier operations and how they were sunk by uboats, I will again point out, that when you do not have adequate ASW escorts, it wont make a hell of a lot of difference, if a uboat is out there, it will sink you. But since you are implying that Royal Navy carrier operations were lacking, let me give you a few more facts. Uboats sank 3,500 merchant vessels during the battle of the Atlantic. They also sank 175 warships, of which, all but five the majority of the rest were destroyers, Destroyer escorts and corvettes, ships designed, equipped and tasked for the hunting and destroying of submarines. Ships equipped with ASDIC and SONAR, (they were not the same thing.) Uboats hunted escorts as well as merchantmen. And when you have 52 men on a Uboat willing to actually attract the attention of ships designed to sink you while another goes after a carrier, it brings a new perspective on how and why those ships ended up on the bottom. And perhaps, if you knew a bit more about the sinkings, you may change your tune a bit. For example, it was not the torpedo that doomed the HMS Ark Royal, she sank under tow to Gibraltar, and only one of her crew died as a result of the torpedo. That should say something. She sank because of design flaws, flaws just as fatal as the one that resulted in the HMS Hood being blown apart with ONE hit. USS Liscome Bay sunk by Japanese submarine USS Block Island, sunk by Uboat USS Wasp, sunk by Japanese submarine USS Yorktown, sunk by Japanese submarine while under tow. So, the British did lose one more carrier to enemy subs than the Americans. And to be bluntly obvious, disregard what the movies portrayed. More often than not, those ships had no idea there was a sub around until the first torpedo hit. Especially the Germans. Those captains learned about how the changes in water temperature affected sonar. Those captains reported that to the high command. Uboats under construction were built with crude but effective ways to measure the temperature of the water outside the boat submerged, older Uboats were adapted with the same gear. Even when radar was put on escorts, Uboat skippers preferred to attack on the surface at night. I can tell you even with modern radar gear, it is not uncommon to get a false echo on the scope on civilian units, and those are 1000 times better than what was available in WW2. So, five British carriers were sunk by uboats. Four American carriers were sunk by Japanese subs (and they had a hell of a lot more escorts than the average Brit carrier group.) So, are you really going to insist that it was the fault of the carriers? World War 2 saw the end of the Battleship era and the beginning of the carrier. Nothing is going to change that. And with the advent of the sub launched ICBM, and sub launched cruise missiles, the carrier is not the big stick it used to be. And by the way, look at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, or watch the show 'Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.'
  11. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    The damage caused by the Swordfish made it possible for the British surface units to actually catch her. Had her steer gear not been damaged she would have made it to the Luftwaffe air cover and safely to harbor, she was that close to safety, please do not minimize the effort of those flight crews. As for the British carriers lost to Uboats, I take it from your posts you do not fully understand Allied ASW operations in the Atlantic or the German Uboat operations, so let me explain. Destroyers (and Corvettes and Destroyer escorts) persecuted Uboats in pairs or in threes. One would maintain sonar contact and direct the other ship or ships onto the contact, this was because once you dropped your depth charges, you lost the contact on sonar. The royal navy also had a nasty habit of stripping ASW assets from surface combat groups to put on convoy duty, meaning a Royal Navy carrier may times operated with only one or two destroyers. The Uboats would attack Royal navy carriers (and US escort carriers) in pairs, one to act as bait for the escorts while the other went for the kill. It wasnt until the 'liberty' destroyers started coming off the ways in 43 that changed. And for the record, the term 'liberty' was attached to any type of vessel that was built fast and put into service with a minimum of time from launch to operational status. Hell RCN and RN corvettes built in Canada had an extensive sea trial period after launching of two weeks before being assigned to convoy duty (and when you consider many of those crewmen had never been to sea in a rowboat, that is saying a lot.) US dd's and de's got 6 to 8 weeks when they were destined for Atlantic duty, but then the US had the ability to put more experienced crewmen with the boots. The simple truth is that that Atlantic carrier war was nothing like the Pacific, with a totally different objective. There was no surface fleet to contend with, the threat was different and the fighting was nothing like the Pacific.
  12. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    The only problem with that carrier was the rec facilities, and well, who in the hell can drink warm beer?
  13. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    The link seems to be broken. However, I did find the footage in question, and spent the last bit reading the comments, including a link to a full explanation of the mechanics. So, I stand corrected, to a degree. The degree being that the mathematics concerning the lateral movement of the Iowa class battleship is 'possible' when a full broadside is fired, under a specific set of circumstances which, in the absence of some bizarre, less than a 1 in a million chance, would never happen. In case you are wondering what those circumstances are, suffice it to say that the shells would have to be backed by powder charges that equal the TOTAL possible charge the gun was designed to handle, which, considering the safety factor, would never happen, since there is no reason for it to happen. In point of fact, the only time a 16 inch naval rifle was ever loaded to anything close to this was when two were wielded end to end to make a gun used for high altitude research. The project was called "project HARP." Hmm, so the Swordfish off the HMS Illustrious did not attack the Italian fleet at Taranto and sink an Italian battleship which proved to the Japanese that the same type of attack could be pulled off at Pearl Harbor? And while the Bismark was not sunk by those same biplanes, they did land a crippling blow to her steering gear which enabled the Royal Navy to pound her to the point that her own crew scuttled her. Yep, the Bismark's crew opened the valves to flood the ship and sink her themselves rather than let the Brits take her. While the issue was debated for years, it was put to rest when Ballard found her laying on the bottom upright, relatively intact. As for naval aviation in the ETO, well, there were only two navies that actually had carriers, the US and the Brits, which primarily used them for ASW operations guarding convoys. Of those two navies, only the US had aerial torpedoes with a sufficient charge that could possibly damage a battleship. It was only after the Albacore and Barracuda were introduced to the fleet air arm that they had a torpedo bomber that could damage a heavy unit, and by then, the US was in the war and the German navy was not leaving port. However, if you were to sit down and talk to a surviving Uboat crewman, you would find that Allied carrier aviation was something they feared and with good reason.
  14. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    Actually, in this instance, it was documented by the one of her helicopters. One of the items that offset the force of firing her main battery is forward speed. At the time she let loose, the USS New Jersey was barely making steerage way, or less than 15 knots. While there are a number of old film clips used in old movies dealing with shore bombardment, showing the battleships firing full broadsides, none were actually filmed during such operations, all were filmed while the ship was making at least 20 knots. So, your argument is true under specific circumstances. Inertia, as we all know, is resistance to change in movement, as determined by all forces acting on the object. And, you are correct, the resulting chaos would be, and was phenomenal. Or to use another smaller example. Firing a double barrel 12 gauge coach gun. When you fire one barrel at a time, the weapon is easily manageable. Fire both barrels, and the story is different, even for a full grown 200 pound man. FYI, some bright individual has started making 3 barrel shotguns in which all three barrels can be fired at the same time. I do not advise this (from experience) as that it can and will knock you on your [edited], and I weigh 240. In the army, I witnessed a 115 pound female soldier fire the M2, and the damn thing bounced her in a circle around the tripod, thankfully it was not a full belt (it would have helped if she had not gotten whiskey trigger and released the trigger.)
  15. Macsen1961

    Why is Bogue 1.5kts slower than it actually was?

    The only reason I know the Subic Bay story is simple... On my mother's side of the family (her maiden name was Baughman) when I attend family reunions, everyone is either in Marine or Navy dress blues, and my Uncle Jake was a Master at Arms on the Jersey during her tour in South East Asia. When I was in the service, I showed up in Army dress greens proudly wearing my ranger patch and jump wings. And I was considered the black sheep or crazy cousin, take your pick. He related another story that kind of goes to the game modelling of battleships. After being taken out of mothballs and before sailing for Vietnam, the former weapons officer who served on her during WW2 came aboard to give advice to her new officers. He told the skipper, than under no circumstances was the entire battery of her 16 inch guns to be fired simultaneously. Now, lets face facts here. 1) it is a known fact that you never tell a male not to do something, because being male, we are going to do it just to prove we can. 2) In addition to the above statement, never tell a ship's captain what he can and cannot do with his ship. During her stint off the coast of Vietnam, a call came in for her to support some operation ashore. The skipper responded by ordering her main battery prepped for a fire mission. He followed procedure and fired single rounds until they got the call that they were on target. When the word came, he ordered all nine 16 inch guns fired at once. The result was that the New Jersey healed over 25 degrees and moved sideways a total of 78 feet! The USS New Jersey also sank half of a north Vietnamese island after the NVA on the island fired a number of 155 rounds at her. The Jersey's response was 12 salvos of 16 inch rounds from all her guns, one turret at a time. The troops on the island attempted to surrender.