Re: Fighters and Hangers

["david smith" <bifsmith207@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I tried something similar, but used FB ablative armor for the "torpedo
>protection" of bulges, multiple hulls, and water-filled compartments,
>and adapted a version of MT integral armor for the belt (originally
>developed for a B5 conversion).  Also, the K-guns needed to have range
>bands scaled to their class rather than all being equal.
>
>I also used a system for separate main drive and maneuver drive systems
>(also for the B5 conversion) so that ships could be given varying
>speeds but the same maneuverability, and also for the possibility of
>maneuver damage without propulsion damage (ala KMS Bismark).
>
>J

I always thought that the ranges of navel guns (the large caliber ones 
anyway) was roughly equal once you get above about 8". The only thing you 
alter are the accuracy and the velocity/shell size (or dammage/armour 
peircing) figures. I say this because the HMS coventry`s (morred in london) 
8" guns (or are they 6", have to get reference books out) have a range of 
about 30 miles. The range of big navel guns was always limited by how far 
you could see with the curviture of the ocean more than the 
bore/lenth/mussel velocity of the gun.

And I agree that introducing a "lucky strike" or random hit without having 
to go through the armour (like the torpedo strike on the bismark) would be 
needed if you were playing, for example, a senario. But I would not use the 
above in general playing (I wouldn`t see a navy intentionally introducing a 
week point into it`s ships designs).

Can`t belive I just said that, having just watched the documentary on the 
sinking of the prince of wales and the divers examining the wreak.

BIF

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband