New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Footslogger »

Photos of the New Class of Destroyer.

http://www.cnet.com/pictures/next-gener ... -pictures/

User avatar
robinsa
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:00 am
Location: North Carolina

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by robinsa »

I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
LeeChard
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:24 pm
Location: Michigan

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by LeeChard »

It may be invisible to radar but unfortunately it's not invisible to our eyes [:D]
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by zuluhour »

It reminds me more of the Merrimack.
Denniss
Posts: 8875
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Denniss »

As the second (confederate) incarnation.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Dili »

Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Denniss

As the second (confederate) incarnation.

There was only one USS Merrimack. The second version was the CSS Virginia.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: robinsa

I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.

It's the traditionalist in you. Only matters how well she fights.
The Moose
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by AW1Steve »

Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by AW1Steve »

If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]
warspite1

Or better still, re-making the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (late thirties re-build stylee).... [;)]


Image
Attachments
1faclg.jpg
1faclg.jpg (55.81 KiB) Viewed 485 times
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]

I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.

The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."
The Moose
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]

I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.

The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."

It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Kull »

The CiC looks a lot like my vision of the WitP 2.0 interface:

Image
Attachments
AE2.jpg
AE2.jpg (42.83 KiB) Viewed 485 times
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]

By post-688 I meant an everyday, affordable (relatively) SSN. Sure they're modern and take many features from Seawolf. But Seawolf was not affordable in the post-Cold War environment in the numbers we need to fulfill tasking. And Seawolf was vastly over-designed for most SSN missions. Like using a Jaguar to haul plywood.

However, in a real sense the 688 was not a "post-637 design." I'm sure you know what the 637 was designed to do, and what the 688 was designed to do. Different. And that's all I'm saying about that here.
The Moose
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]

Destroyers are much bigger today.
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by dr.hal »

It brings one back to the days of ram bows at the turn of the last century.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by crsutton »

They did not miss the mark by much....

Image
Attachments
FerrisAndKirk.jpg
FerrisAndKirk.jpg (117.37 KiB) Viewed 486 times
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
kaleun
Posts: 5144
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 10:57 pm
Location: Colorado

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by kaleun »

I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.

Does look like a giant submarine.
Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

Post by Dili »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Dili

Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]

Destroyers are much bigger today.


I know, just playing in the WW2 mode, hence the Wash. Treaty reference.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”