Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/16/2016 11:48:12 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3330
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
F-14s were super high tech, but was there any older model that could had remained in operation for longer? or be easier to downgrade to 1940s technology in order to remain in service?

A-6s or A-7s maybe?

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 31
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/16/2016 11:54:22 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14446
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

F-14s were super high tech, but was there any older model that could had remained in operation for longer? or be easier to downgrade to 1940s technology in order to remain in service?

A-6s or A-7s maybe?

At the time of the making of the Final Countdown , the TF-9J was still in service as a trainer. It was a 2 seat version of the old F-9 Cougar (a swept wing version of the F-9 Panther). That was 1950's fighter.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 32
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/17/2016 12:07:16 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

F-14s were super high tech, but was there any older model that could had remained in operation for longer? or be easier to downgrade to 1940s technology in order to remain in service?

A-6s or A-7s maybe?

Jet engine technology was in its infancy and making compressor blades of titanium was not yet perfected. Even if the sample aircraft was in front of them the aircraft manufacturers did not have the processes nor tooling to make things with the precision or exotic material required.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 33
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/17/2016 12:29:42 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3330
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
Yes, but we are talking about maintenance, not building a new engine.

I mean you can ground 1/3 of a squadron and then you can keep the other 2/3 flying for longer by cannibalization, this of course after depleting the carriers' stores.

And avionics can be downgraded

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/17/2016 12:32:26 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 34
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/17/2016 2:55:05 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6306
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Maybe they should read this series http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Choice-Axis-Time-Trilogy/dp/0345457137/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1460662031&sr=8-4&keywords=john+birmingham
or this story http://www.amazon.com/1942-Novel-Robert-Conroy/dp/0345506073/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460662085&sr=8-1&keywords=1942+conroy

I knew I had read it before!!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 35
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/17/2016 10:30:01 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10373
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Yes, but we are talking about maintenance, not building a new engine.

I mean you can ground 1/3 of a squadron and then you can keep the other 2/3 flying for longer by cannibalization, this of course after depleting the carriers' stores.

And avionics can be downgraded


There comes a point where you run out of spares and making turbine blades from titanium was tech that would have been difficult in the 40s. 1940s electronics took up significantly more space than even 1970s tech. WWII vintage aircraft radios were huge, the P-51's radio capability could fit in a shoebox in the 1970s and fit in a pocket today, but it took up quite a bit of space on the plane: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/products/mustang/mustang-13.jpg

You're also talking about operating these planes under war conditions and wear will be accelerated. After the first year the surviving aircraft would be too valuable to teach industry the new tech to risk in combat.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 36
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/18/2016 2:51:48 PM   
aspqrz02

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: online
The Germans evidently were using printed circuit boards (pressed cardboard) before the war and used them in some of their electronics during the war ... dunno about the US or Commonwealth, though.

I would think that transistors and semiconductor technology would also be easier to set up than 'by the end of the war' ... patents for transistor like devices go back to the 1920s but were too advanced for the semiconductor technology available ... transistors as we know them date to 1947 ... so, with a wartime effort triggered by a Final Countdown like scenario, I would expect experimental models within a year, field prototypes within 1 1/2 to 2 years, and the real deal, something like limited mass production within 2-3 at most.

That's because the modern engineers who come back with the ships know what to do, know the dead ends, and that will save a hell of a lot of development time, since they were fairly close IRL anyway.

YMMV,

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 37
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/18/2016 5:16:24 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

The Germans evidently were using printed circuit boards (pressed cardboard) before the war and used them in some of their electronics during the war ... dunno about the US or Commonwealth, though.

I would think that transistors and semiconductor technology would also be easier to set up than 'by the end of the war' ... patents for transistor like devices go back to the 1920s but were too advanced for the semiconductor technology available ... transistors as we know them date to 1947 ... so, with a wartime effort triggered by a Final Countdown like scenario, I would expect experimental models within a year, field prototypes within 1 1/2 to 2 years, and the real deal, something like limited mass production within 2-3 at most.

That's because the modern engineers who come back with the ships know what to do, know the dead ends, and that will save a hell of a lot of development time, since they were fairly close IRL anyway.

YMMV,

Phil

The research could probably advance pretty quickly but I am not so sure the exotic rare-earth elements needed for manufacture of transistors and semiconductors were being produced in any kind of quantity back then. My understanding is that things like selenium and germanium come from far away places like southeast Asia and Indonesia. At best, they are in Africa or South America but have not been discovered yet by mineral prospectors. Global trade never really took off until the post-war freedom of the seas and air travel made it possible to develop resources worldwide.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to aspqrz02)
Post #: 38
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/18/2016 8:53:07 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 950
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
USS Saratoga survived "test A" (Air burst Tactical Nuc) but sank "test B" (underwater Tactical Nuc).

I read that on Wikipedia.

I am unaware of any contradicting evidence.

Those old ships were built to withstand damage. Lots of damage.

Newer ships are built to "avoid" or "destroy" incoming threats for the most part. Their ability to sustain damage relies on blunting and containing a blast or redirecting the damage to avoid total system collapse. Compartmentalization and deflection surfaces.

All of this is to say that I agree - within 10 minutes a modern fleet would decimate a WW2 Vintage fleet of similar or larger composition; the older fleet would be in-operable.

Cannon and fire control would be out. Damage crews and surviving ship borne Naval personal would be fully engaged. Aircraft operations not possible.

However I am not certain the older fleet would be "sunk" beneath the waves. Inoperable yes - sunk maybe not. Perhaps a percentage would be afloat.

The older fleets ability to fire back would be limited to the courage, persistence, and innovation / inspiration of a few selected individuals (gunners, junior officers) who could react on the spot and improvise "something" from partial damage.

Therefore they are retaliating and at best obtaining limited damage on the enemy (in this case the modern fleet).

Perhaps something like a 85 - 15 or 90 - 10 percentage victory I am speculating - at least under the circumstances described.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 39
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/18/2016 9:13:00 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 950
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Final Countdown scenario would be a nightmare to keep the ships and planes operational.....

The Nimitz would have probably been operating a large, but conventional USN air group by 1944.

I haven't seen the movie in decades and I never read the book



<snip - my edits - my emphasis >

I think that is perhaps the real point as well. Mr Dolson and I agree some a similar vantage point I believe.

Size differential plus experience differential plus tactical learning not only from WW2 but Korea, Vietnam, etc etc

How many Airgroups would the Nimitz operate given the size differential even compared to the late war Essex class carriers i.e. Wasp or even Boxer ? 2 times as many? 3 times more ?

The capacity difference is huge.

Hancock was what 30,000 Tons ? Nimitz is 100,000 Tons ?

How many sorties could have CVN 68 launched in 10 minutes compared to CV19 Hancock ?

How many days at sea and provisions could Nimitz store of WW2 late vintage ?

Even if the tech were downgraded till it could be reverse engineered, Nimitz at the time of WW2 would have made Yamato look small. She would have been a weapon more visibly terrifying than even an A Bomb which was little understood and appreciated at the time.

Wouldnt one carrier of Nimitz size be able to launch a Doolittle raid X 2 ??? or more ??



_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 40
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/18/2016 10:40:40 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14446
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Final Countdown scenario would be a nightmare to keep the ships and planes operational.....

The Nimitz would have probably been operating a large, but conventional USN air group by 1944.

I haven't seen the movie in decades and I never read the book



<snip - my edits - my emphasis >

I think that is perhaps the real point as well. Mr Dolson and I agree some a similar vantage point I believe.

Size differential plus experience differential plus tactical learning not only from WW2 but Korea, Vietnam, etc etc

How many Airgroups would the Nimitz operate given the size differential even compared to the late war Essex class carriers i.e. Wasp or even Boxer ? 2 times as many? 3 times more ?

The capacity difference is huge.

Hancock was what 30,000 Tons ? Nimitz is 100,000 Tons ?

How many sorties could have CVN 68 launched in 10 minutes compared to CV19 Hancock ?

How many days at sea and provisions could Nimitz store of WW2 late vintage ?

Even if the tech were downgraded till it could be reverse engineered, Nimitz at the time of WW2 would have made Yamato look small. She would have been a weapon more visibly terrifying than even an A Bomb which was little understood and appreciated at the time.

Wouldnt one carrier of Nimitz size be able to launch a Doolittle raid X 2 ??? or more ??



Never mind launch a Doolittle raid. Nimitz could recover one!

Here's the Forrestal (considerably smaller) recovering and launching a C-130 (considerably bigger).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 4/18/2016 10:44:24 PM >

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 41
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 1:02:55 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10373
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The research could probably advance pretty quickly but I am not so sure the exotic rare-earth elements needed for manufacture of transistors and semiconductors were being produced in any kind of quantity back then. My understanding is that things like selenium and germanium come from far away places like southeast Asia and Indonesia. At best, they are in Africa or South America but have not been discovered yet by mineral prospectors. Global trade never really took off until the post-war freedom of the seas and air travel made it possible to develop resources worldwide.


Germanium was a stepping stone semi-conductor. It was easier to make into a diode than silicon, so it was used first, but silicon is the semi-conductor of choice most of the time. Germanium has some limited uses, but it isn't as good. The trick to making semi-conductors is the ability to make pure, single crystals of silicon. For modern semi-conductor fab, the crystals are about 8 inches across and a couple of feet long. The crystals need a degree of purity that would have been very, very difficult to achieve in the 1940s. They probably could manage individual transistors which don't need quite the level of purity modern fab requires. As the transistors get smaller, they become more and more susceptible to impurities.

Fortunately silicon is easy to come by, it's one of the most common elements in the Earth's crust.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 42
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 2:36:38 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3330
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
Final Countdown happens in 1980... Would Nimitz be carrying tactical nuclear warheads then?



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/19/2016 2:37:59 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 43
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 4:21:30 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13717
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Somebody has to do something to stop this. Even the moderator has been sucked into this space-time vortex called "The Final Countdown". That band that did that is from Europe. Must I remind you about Freedom Fries? Jimminy Carter made Kirk Douglas make that awful movie. For "National Security" reasons. I guess it falls upon me, as the sanest forumite to establish order here. Let us hear no more about what if the Romans had Sherman tanks at Cannae. Or if the Light Brigade had Browning Automatic Rifles at Sevastopol. There is a forum somewhere for this sort of thing, but this ain't it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 44
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 4:29:59 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13717
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Besides, gorns can't think, let alone do experiments on thinking. I find this thread to be discriminatory against gorns. Cease and desist or there will be a lawsuit in the works.

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 45
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 7:00:18 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Besides, gorns can't think, let alone do experiments on thinking. I find this thread to be discriminatory against gorns. Cease and desist or there will be a lawsuit in the works.

Since I retired I have no use for suits - but thanks for the offer!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 46
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 2:39:13 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4894
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
the sanest forumite




(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 47
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 2:46:18 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 950
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
Ok to further elaborate.

The combined Battlestar's Galactica and Pegasus would wipe out the Gorn Nation in under 10 minutes.

Further Cylons are really hot and Gorns... not so much.



Those Battlestar's would also make a mockery of any George Lucas or Gene Rodenberry space ship. I mean how good would your "force", "tractor beam", or "photon torpedoes" be against a monster that probably weighs in at 3000 Million tons and can host a significant sentient population

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 4/19/2016 3:08:23 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 48
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 5:00:44 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13257
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Ok to further elaborate.

The combined Battlestar's Galactica and Pegasus would wipe out the Gorn Nation in under 10 minutes.

Further Cylons are really hot and Gorns... not so much.



Those Battlestar's would also make a mockery of any George Lucas or Gene Rodenberry space ship. I mean how good would your "force", "tractor beam", or "photon torpedoes" be against a monster that probably weighs in at 3000 Million tons and can host a significant sentient population

Sounds like a Borg cube.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 49
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 7:04:50 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 950
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Ok to further elaborate.

The combined Battlestar's Galactica and Pegasus would wipe out the Gorn Nation in under 10 minutes.

Further Cylons are really hot and Gorns... not so much.



Those Battlestar's would also make a mockery of any George Lucas or Gene Rodenberry space ship. I mean how good would your "force", "tractor beam", or "photon torpedoes" be against a monster that probably weighs in at 3000 Million tons and can host a significant sentient population

Sounds like a Borg cube.


Sir BB -

I had failed to recall the Borg Cube.

Your persuasive argument makes me reconsider; other than the point that Cylons were "hot"

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 50
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/19/2016 8:25:06 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13717
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Besides, gorns can't think, let alone do experiments on thinking. I find this thread to be discriminatory against gorns. Cease and desist or there will be a lawsuit in the works.

Since I retired I have no use for suits - but thanks for the offer!


At my age I should have a black suit and shoes but I don't. Not even a white shirt in the house.

I do have a tie I could wear, though.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 4/19/2016 8:45:50 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 51
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/20/2016 2:58:54 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4855
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Of course this has been a weird thread - naturally.
But I am struck by the tone of (almost commercial) "United States Navy - A Global Force For Good" infomercial it seems I have read.

Do all of you really think that a modern task force of surface combat ships ...
(and for MY argument - let's assume there are no nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons, and no nuclear CV's with modern aircraft ready to launch...it just makes the premise too ridiculous to even bother to imagine WW2 ships getting that close)...
but that somehow if a TF of modern Cruisers and Destroyers found themselves in a real life surface engagement - at fairly close range to boot - they would magically dispatch an equal squadron of WWII era ships ....simply because they are so much more sophisticated in electronics and computers?

No one thinks the human element, and all that WW2 Combat Experience would come into play? Computers and electronics are everything?

Does anyone think that modern ships - designed to shoot down missiles (hopefully) and aircraft - and engage submarines ...without being hit - would do well in a close-in shooting match?

Does anyone imagine that all the electronics of a Ticonderoga or Arliegh Burke would be active and left 'ON' in a real HOT war zone? Inviting attack from up to thousands of miles away?...or would they go darked out and listening?

Are today's sailors so much better military men than a veteran of 1942 or 1944 to react to a sudden combat situation that - that alone would decide it?
It certainly didn't go that way in the Falklands in '82 - the last naval war...the human element played a BIG part - as it always has.

Does anyone really believe that a modern DD would function 90 seconds after being hit - like a WW2 DD did?
And as far as technology goes - if Roanoke Light Cruisers and Salem Heavy Cruisers were allowed to get within 12 miles of a Ticonderoga's and an Arleigh Burke's - and open up - are we really to assume that the modern ships would prevail against the avalanche coming their way?

Modern warships were not designed for a heavy surface combat mission - slugging it out with guns. They are - like all warships - a compromise of capabilities best suited for expected encounters...and getting in gun range to slug it out with their 1940's-1950s armored and heavily gunned ancestors (who's whole purpose was just that) is NOT what they are designed for.

So as ridiculous as the whole idea is, if WW2 era designed ships actually got to engage today's ships - on WW2 terms, the bottom would be littered with a lot of modern vessels - probably more than the WW2 types....

It's no different than a modern Rifle Platoon engaging Medieval Knights ... In Hand To Hand Combat (....with NO ammunition).
I was a soldier once, we had M-16's and M-60's, I wouldn't want to face a sudden onslaught of German Trench Raiders at night from 1918....I'm not THAT certain that my popgun was so much better.

Anyway - that's my rant on it.

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 52
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/20/2016 3:26:31 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13717
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Big B - You have unlocked a door beyond which is another dimension, a dimension of sound (yada yada yada a dimension of sight and mind). You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance (your mother in law's house). You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 53
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/20/2016 3:34:43 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4855
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Big B - You have unlocked a door beyond which is another dimension, a dimension of sound (yada yada yada a dimension of sight and mind). You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance (your mother in law's house). You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.



Imagine A FLEET....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 54
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/20/2016 3:39:18 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13717
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
There's something wrong there, he doesn't have a lit cigarette in his mouth or near it. Pray tell which dimension did you visit to acquire that photograph?

_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 55
RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 E... - 4/20/2016 3:45:19 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13717
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
If anyone has it, I'd love to see a smoking contest between Edward Murrow and Rod Serling.

"London calling, I'm out of Marlboros". Serling, "Where do I have to go to get a g-damn cigarette?"

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 4/20/2016 3:49:56 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.205