Matrix Games Forums

And its successor, the Tempest (version I in background and II in foreground):

Thanks, can't wait to see a Yak-3 or a Yak-9.

ncc1701e wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 11:49 am Thanks, can't wait to see a Yak-3 or a Yak-9.

These Soviet fighters all seem to look the same (the La-5FN the outlier).

The Yak-3:

Also comes in a Radial version (Yak-3U):

This shows that the gun is in in the center of the prop for these planes (sounds very effective to me!)

Yak-9:

Now for some heavy tanks.

Tiger II:

Jagdtiger:

IS-III (arrived after the German surrender (5/8/45) so is it a WWII tank? - I say yes. While the ETO was over, the PTO was not):

Curtis Lemay wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 1:24 am Jagdtiger:

The Jagdtiger is not a tank.

RangerJoe wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 1:33 pm

Curtis Lemay wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 1:24 am Jagdtiger:

The Jagdtiger is not a tank.

Depends on how one define tank.

T-28 Super Heavy Tank:

A-29 Tortoise:

I thought it would be fun to show the progression of Battleships over their 50 year history.

Start with the 1890's. USS Indiana (BB-1). 1893. 10,288 displacement. 4x13" guns. 358'x69'. 15knots. 473 crew.

Next, the 1900's. But these years must be split into pre-Dreadnoughts and post-Dreadnoughts. That ship was such a watershed.

Pre-Dreadnought. USS Virginia (BB-13). 1904. 14,948 displacement. 4x12" guns. 441'x76'. 19knots. 812 crew.

Now the first US Dreadnought. USS South Carolina (BB-26). 1908. 16,000 displacement. 8x12" guns. 452'x80'. 18.5knots. 869 crew.

Now the 1910's. USS Arizona (BB-39). 1915. 29,158 displacement. 12x14" guns. 608'x97'. 21knots. 1159 crew.

Note she had a major superstructure overhaul before PH. Both shots are shown:

1920's. USS West Virginia (BB-48). 1921. 32,693 displacement. 8x16" guns. 625'x97'. 21knots. 1305 crew.

But then, the Washington Naval Treaty (1923) limited BB construction. Only pocket BBs could be made. But there were plans.

In the 1920's-1930's there were plans for this class which included the USS Montana (BB-51). Planned for the 1930's but cancelled. 43,200 displacement. 12x16" guns. 684'x108'. 23knots. 1616 crew.

Finally, the 1940's. Anything goes. But BB's become less important than CVs. But look at what was planned!

USS Montana (BB-67). Planned but cancelled. 64,240 displacement. 12x16" guns. 921'x121'. 28knots. 2355 crew.

Curtis Lemay wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2024 4:23 pm But then, the Washington Naval Treaty (1923) limited BB construction. Only pocket BBs could be made.

warspite1

Thank-you for the pictures. But I would like to provide some clarification on the above comment.

Yes, BB construction was limited, but to suggest that the WNT and its successors meant only "pocket" battleships could be built, is incorrect. The Washington Treaty allowed for 16-inch guns. The 35,000 tons and 14-inch guns envisaged under the Second London Naval Treaty (pre-escalator clause) could not be described as "pocket" battleships by any measure. The North Carolinas, even had they been built as planned, would have been powerful battleships. The South Dakotas were built with the 35,000 tons restriction, but with 16-inch guns following the invocation of the escalator clause.

I am assuming you are getting the word "pocket" from the name coined by the British to describe the Deutschland-class. If so, the Germans were not party to the WNT. The construction of German naval vessels was limited by the Treaty of Versailles - which limited German ships nominally to 10,000 tons at that time.