That makes alot of sense. They were nick named that becouse they had bad manoverbility and were then nicknamed at a oil tanker class in WWI that there names ended in "ol"
Have any of you big gun fellows ever actually built a G3 (most small gun clubs don't allow hypotheticals)? Seems to me they might be a little on the nasty side. Another ship I've wondered about is the South Dakota (BB-49) class. A 12 16" broadside HAS to just be evil under your rules, regardless of the 23 knot top speed... Mike D
We don't allow hypotheticals either, our criteria is that the keel must have been laid as a minumum for any ship to be eligible. I think I've seen a WWI South Dakota here. PS, our minimum speed for warships is 24 knots.
Yeah, Battlestations requires that a ship must have been floated (note, sliding down the ways and not sinking counts
In Washington Treaty we allow any ships which were ordered, as opposed to ships which were commissioned in the IRCWCC. The thinking in Washington Treaty is that allowing ships which were at least ordered gives captains more variety (especially for the Axis), while allowing designs which had at least a reasonable chance of being built (unlike monsters like H-44). Personally, I have no interest in these ships; I prefer actual ships and beyond that, I prefer ships which at least saw surface action (and hopefully performed well!). Some guys are really interested in those not completed designs, and I think its good to have them building ships they are interested in so I have them to shoot at. We're such a niche hobby, and a rather small one at that, I'd hate to turn someone down because they want an Amagi battlecruiser or a Montana battleship. Let them build them I say! Mike D
Nope, nobody has done a G3 battlecruiser in the WWCC, although someone is slowly assembling a wooden Lion class WWII battleship. There also have not been any WWI SoDaks. I am actually a bit surprised about that, because when the WWCC voted to have a fully-armed division that battles before noon, one person built a USS California. Same layout of 12 guns in four triple turrets and similar but smaller hull, and 7/32" guns instead of 1/4". Very foolish if you ask me, especially when he could have easily done a SoDak or a Montana instead. I think that the hypothetical ships fill an important role in the Big Gun club, in that they offer the Axis some choices of ship that actually stand a chance against big, beefy Allied battlewagons. Monsters like the H-39 and H-44 are little better than a over-glorified Bismark, but the Dutch Battlecruiser and the french Alsace are very important for the survival of the Axis battle-fleet. It also allows my Spahkreuzer, which was laid down but destroyed by a british air raid before much progress could be made.
Perhaps your guy with the California likes ships with some history to them. California certainly had some, but the SoDaks and Montanas obviously did not. I personally prefer ships that saw action to those who didn't. Mike D
Hey hang on there a minute which South Dakota are you talking about! WW2 So Daks especialy the South Dakota saw action in the Pacific, my father served on board the whole war. Now on the Atlantic side one fired on the Jean Bart!
http://www.westernwarshipcombat.com/gallery/album59 Actually, I think the reason he built a USS California is that he could find plans for it without having to search very hard. He previously built a Spahkreuzer (currently mine) and a Dutch Battlecruiser (Spahkreuzer's favorite food), both ships that were never built. Spahkreuzer was laid down but bombed and stopped, and the Dutch BC's didn't get very far either. He's got no problem with hypotheticals, I just think he likes smaller projectiles []
