Page 3 of 3
RE: DD for surface combat
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:32 pm
by marky
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
I find the Long Lance results to be hit and miss (pardon the pun). I have had a few battles in which they played a large role....like the sinking of the Boise I mentioned before I have had many more battles where they played no role. As an allied player I have lost more than a few ships to BB gun fire. Of course I probably lose more to those d@#! Bettys. [:@]
indeed, i think i lost the North Carolina in the Sound to a Betty. i think she was at Tulagi. so i never risk BBs in the Slot anymore
besides theyre far more useful escorting the Battle
Barges [:D]
PS WTF is wrong with my keyboard
ORIGINAL: Terminus
He was off it?
A pox on thee[:D][:-]
now can we get back on topic?
RE: DD for surface combat
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:15 pm
by Rainerle
Has anybody a 'what if...' name list of the additional Shimakazes?
RE: DD for surface combat
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:32 pm
by Shark7
Only info I have ever found was that 16 additional Shimikazes were planned, but never laid down. Seems the Japanese needed carriers worse than destroyers by the time Shimikaze came into play. If anyone could get pennant numbers or names of the planned vessels it would be interesting.
RE: DD for surface combat
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:12 pm
by sven6345789
well, i did not find the names of the Shimakaze class destroyers, but this is a nice website about japanese Destroyers in general
http://www.friesian.com/destroy.htm
RE: DD for surface combat
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:55 pm
by Shark7
Well I do notice that it gives you the names of a planned fourth class of advanced destroyers that were never ordered. Funny that they'd ben issued names if never even ordered though.