Awesome, glad you found one that stirs the heart string a bit! It always helps to get em built when you have some kind of attachment to em.
i can imagine. im just excited to start, maybe ill give my dad an IOU, and then use his money to build it, then repay him later. I wonder if i should paint it gray, or do a paint scheme of sorts. ill have to look at that.
My source http://www.shipcamouflage.com/usn_cl.htm shows Biloxi as having measure 32 pattern 6d in '44 and '45. I can't find the 6d (or 22d pattern) for Clevelands, but here is a link with the measure 33/3d pattern for Clevelands. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-co-mk/camouflg/usn-wwii/31-3-3d.htm On the page, the site talks about the difference between measures 32 and 33, so you should be able to use the measure 32 colors with the 3d pattern and be pretty close to what Biloxi looked like. (MS 33/3d was from USS Vincennes)
thanks mike. Hey, if i do end up doing it, I think i would want a .5 unit pump. Im then left with 2.5 units. 2 sterns, and what, a .5 unit bow gun, at 15 degrees and lots of down angle?
or would it just be better to play it safe, and use a 1 unit pump with 2 stern guns. i think this would be much more simple.
In the IRCWCC, a 3.0 unit ship is not allowed to split a unit. So, 1 1-unit pump and 2 50-rd guns are really your only option.
Thanks mike for the info, i guess i overlooked that. So 2 stern guns. I know its up to me, but do you suggest that I set them up long range, sort range or 1 or both? I know lots of questions, but this will be put to good use(putting holes in Monk's ships [])
I'd go for long range at first. As you get some stick time in, you can always shorten up the range later if you wish. You want to have your duals hitting close together as possible. Another option though is a bow gun and a stern gun. Current fast gun wisdom is to go dual sterns to try and get the bigger hole in someone, but I watched a video a few weeks back of old school cruisers armed with a single bow and single stern gun tearing it up. I used to be firmly on the dual stern bandwagon, but I'm no longer convinced that's the best set up... I can almost promise you though that the other fast gun skippers are going to tell you dual sterns though. My opinion may be a bit jaded since I went treaty and don't think about fast gun set ups as much any more.
If you think about it, twin sterns has the potential to be more destructive. Once you get on target, you can put more steel into your opponent in a shorter amount of time, hopefully multiplying your damage by taking out chunks instead of clean holes. That's probably why people say to go with twin sterns. The downside to twin sterns is that you can only attack targets behind you, and that puts a limit on the range of tactics you can use. If you go with a bow gun and a stern gun, you have a wider range of tactics available. While you won't be capable of inflicting as much damage in optimum situations, you'll have a more diverse boat with a wider range of tactics to choose from. It all depends on your personal preferences. Heck, if you really want to you could put in twin sterns AND a bow gun, and disable one of the cannons with a toggle switch. Whatever you go with, I'm sure you will put plenty of holes in Monk's ships. I sailed a Big Gun torpedo-armed cruiser for two years. My available tactics consisted mostly of deciding whether to approach my target for a head-to-head pass, a stern chase, or an intercept from the side. There was a little more to it than that, but I mostly had those three options, and that was it. I was pretty darned bored with those options by the time I sold my torpedo-cruiser. My next ship is a Big Gun Viribus Unitis class dreadnought, with six rotating 7/32" cannons forward and six fixed 7/32" cannons aft. The rotating front cannons will give me the freedom to engage targets however I want, and the fixed back guns will give me a powerful knockout punch in case anyone tries chasing me. After that, who knows? I may build a WWII fast battleship with 9 rotating 1/4" cannons and a computer fire control, or I may build a pre-dreadnought with 14-bb-gun broadsides from the Russo-Japanese war. It all depends on the tactics I want to try next.
I think that the dual stern is a better idea for me, for now, as i learn how to handle the ship, and then i might diversify(thats what the next ship will be for, an Alaks or a Richelieu). I cant wait to sink Monk, ive been pining to do it since i started. Nothing against him, but he's a red sox fan, and that just doesnt fly with me[]. Well, when I start builing, and have my own topic for the build, Ill probably ask alot more questions, so i do things right.
sock color is a perfectly legitimate reason to sink someone. And RED socks? Unforgivable! You go out there and sink his ship, BoomerBoy. And when you do, take his socks and make him wear something more appropriate. White socks, or maybe French socks. Or, if you're feeling nice, black socks with little jolly rogers around the top.
Kotori, i hope that that was a joke. []. no, i want to put holes in everyone, because whats the point if im not going to put big holes in some one else's pride and joy.
I found this formula a while ago and saved it on my machine. I do not know who put it out there but it works. I tried it on a couple of ships from the ship list. The formula is: Full size ship displacement in tons multiplied by 2240; then divide by the cube of the scale. Example 1: I'm building a ship at 1/48th scale, the full size ship displaced about 1000 tons: (1000 X 2240)/48 cubed = 2,240,000/110592 = 20.25 pounds. Example 2: Panzer Kreuzer in 1/144th scale 26,100 x 2240/144x144x144= model weight 584864000/2985984= model weight 19.6lbs = model weight J
Awesome, i found that if you multiple the wieght of a ship by .0025 you get very close to the scale wieght at 1/96th scale.
