 |
| |
|
|
Th0mas
|
 |
London
Sep 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I look at it this way:
A worker represents about 10,000 people; a settler, maybe twice that.
A galley can move two of those.
 |
I look at it this way...
The number is not important, but the organisation and duration is.
A Worker represents between 100-1,000 people
So 1,000 people might be enough to build a road in 10 years. 200 might repesent the numbers needed to irrigate a flood plain over a 100 year period.
A Settler represents between 1,000 - 2,000
A single unit of population represents the initial numbers who set up the city (1000) + those who joined later drawn to the opportunity of a new life + the natural increase in population expected, over the time period, once an area is settled and cultivated.
...so a galley represents probably 1 ship, but when your time frame is 3 - 4 turns to make a journey (300-400 years) it may not be the same ship or the ship makes A LOT of journeys.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Not true. A typical modern US carrier carries approx. 75-85 aircraft of which only 65-70 are capable of air to air or air to ground missions. Further, a carrier aircraft tends to be heavier than an aircraft that operates from land, which means in a comparable aircraft the carrier aircraft carries a lighter payload and has less range than those operating from land. |
hi ,
cough , some countries cant even put 50 combat jets in the air , ....... , and you just cant compare an F-15 or F-18 with superior weapons against a land based no night no pylons for heavy weapons F-16 export local build version , .......
there fore a carrier wing superseeds most airforces of a country , and if numbers is a problem , you just bring in a second one , or a third one , or like the war in iraq today , you bring in five , .....
when looking at weapons systems on the carrier itself , well most frigates in the world have nothing that comes close to it , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
metalhead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
The units can represent an abstract grouping, in which the 'lead ship'/predominant technolgy is... a carrier, or an Aegis Cruiser or... so on and so forth.
The Battleship is a case in point... it has a high defence... but that doesn't match common Battleship experience: the predominant form of intership combat is Guided missile, and not gunnery. Any ship with multiple SM-1-ER or SM-2-ER batteries would outperform this ship from a defensive viewpoint. Even a destroyer.
Since formations use interrelated defense... (ASW and AAW) no ship can be... defensively... 'an island'.
Multiple 'forms' of attack mean that no defensive value makes sense, unless its considered to be part of a mini-BG. |
This may be the case in the past 20 years, but the fact is, the Battleship, as represented in Civ3, is the early 20th century behemoth, whose only firepower was large artillery guns. To represent a ship with more modern technology, more ship types need to be added which correspond to more modern warships that use guided missile and other similar technologies. Of course, ship-to-ship combat is a largely obsolete concept nowadays - ships are engaged almost exclusively by air, and occasionally submarine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
cough , some countries cant even put 50 combat jets in the air , ....... , and you just cant compare an F-15 or F-18 with superior weapons against a land based no night no pylons for heavy weapons F-16 export local build version , .......
there fore a carrier wing superseeds most airforces of a country , and if numbers is a problem , you just bring in a second one , or a third one , or like the war in iraq today , you bring in five , .....
when looking at weapons systems on the carrier itself , well most frigates in the world have nothing that comes close to it , .....
have a nice day |
Panang,
you are describing a third rate airforce that even the Brits or the Russian Navies could easily sweep aside. A modern airforce is typically composed in numbers ranging from 300 to a 1000 or more aircraft which can be armed with ASM missles. As far as the F-18 it is a great strike aircraft, but is only a decent dogfighter. The F-18 also has a reputation for having a very limited combat radius.
Tactical Grace:
I think you are refering to B-17's at Midway, not B-52's.
The problem with the B-17's was that you could not hit a moving target at 20,000 ft. An interesting sidenote is that in late 1942 a squadron of B-26 medium bombers were modified to carry a 75 mm cannon in the nose and tactics were changed to low level strikes. The results on strikes at Rabaul were spectacular, and with the combination of carrier strikes in early 1943 ended the viability of Rabaul as a naval base for the Japanese.
President Mike:
What you wish for can already be achieved by using the editor and a little imagination.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Panang,
you are describing a third rate airforce that even the Brits or the Russian Navies could easily sweep aside. A modern airforce is typically composed in numbers ranging from 300 to a 1000 or more aircraft which can be armed with ASM missles. As far as the F-18 it is a great strike aircraft, but is only a decent dogfighter. The F-18 also has a reputation for having a very limited combat radius.
Tactical Grace:
I think you are refering to B-17's at Midway, not B-52's.
The problem with the B-17's was that you could not hit a moving target at 20,000 ft. An interesting sidenote is that in late 1942 a squadron of B-26 medium bombers were modified to carry a 75 mm cannon in the nose and tactics were changed to low level strikes. The results on strikes at Rabaul were spectacular, and with the combination of carrier strikes in early 1943 ended the viability of Rabaul as a naval base for the Japanese.
President Mike:
What you wish for can already be achieved by using the editor and a little imagination. |
hi ,
lets take belgium as an example or most european countries with the exception of germany , france and the uk ( who still can be outnumbered by 5 aircraft carriers ) , belgium , 96 F-16's , 24 for all weather ops , ..... limited types of standoff missile's , .....
there are at least 85 aircraft aboard a us aircraft carrier , 65 are at least of them are fighters / bombers who all have day and night ops , there is room on the deck for at least 32 more , .....thats 65+32 = 97 , ....... like written above belgium only has 24 with all weather ops , .... so thats almost 4 times more then the belgians can put up , ....
when looking at payload and range the planes based on most aircraft carriers superseed by far the ones from the mainland , holland , germany and belgium for example have different mission missile configurations that limited the options they have on the f-16's they bought , ......
russin navy , well they have less planes then a couple aircraft carriers combined can put in the air , ......
oh and its panag , not panang , ....
have a nice day
 Attachment: f16railstores2.gif
This has been downloaded 107 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dakooch
|
|
The biggest problem I find with carriers is that their movement is set too slow. In fact, Nuc powered carriers have top speeds in excess of their escorts and certainly any battleship. The way the game has it where a task force escorting a carrier is slowed down does not square with reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:25
|
|
Panag:
US carriers would NOT have room for 97 aircraft. Impossible. 60 combat aircraft in 5 squadrons would pretty much be the max. Of course, with 5 carriers that would mean 300 combat aircraft, a total which only Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany would be able to put up against, and not all with the combat capability of the F/A-18 or the F-14.
According to a major study, the most recent F/A-18E Super Hornet would basically be basically the equal of the the russian Su-35/37 Super Flanker, slightly inferior to the french Rafale figher, considerably inferior to the Eurofighter, and at a major disadvantage against the US F-22 Raptor. As far as I know it was not compared to the F-15 but I would believe it would be inferior also.
So, as of today, a major US Navy carrier fleet would probably be enough to overwhelm most enemy and allied air forces. In a couple of years, however, it probably won't until the JSF goes into service in major numbers.
The major advantage of US fighers is of course their ground-attack capability especially that of the F-16 and F/A-18 dual-role aircraft. Add to this de even more powerful F-15E and F-117 and the true might of the US airforce comes into play.
Still, with only carriers against it, the Rest of the World could put up a winning fight!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
|
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Panag:
US carriers would NOT have room for 97 aircraft. Impossible. 60 combat aircraft in 5 squadrons would pretty much be the max. Of course, with 5 carriers that would mean 300 combat aircraft, a total which only Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany would be able to put up against, and not all with the combat capability of the F/A-18 or the F-14.
According to a major study, the most recent F/A-18E Super Hornet would basically be basically the equal of the the russian Su-35/37 Super Flanker, slightly inferior to the french Rafale figher, considerably inferior to the Eurofighter, and at a major disadvantage against the US F-22 Raptor. As far as I know it was not compared to the F-15 but I would believe it would be inferior also.
So, as of today, a major US Navy carrier fleet would probably be enough to overwhelm most enemy and allied air forces. In a couple of years, however, it probably won't until the JSF goes into service in major numbers.
The major advantage of US fighers is of course their ground-attack capability especially that of the F-16 and F/A-18 dual-role aircraft. Add to this de even more powerful F-15E and F-117 and the true might of the US airforce comes into play.
Still, with only carriers against it, the Rest of the World could put up a winning fight! |
Master Zen:
the Study in which you refer to underates the SU-35 significantly. The Superflanker has a number of technologies built into it that no other aircraft except the F-22 possess. In fact the SU-35 has sight and target mode in which the pilot only need to look at a target to get a lock-on. Added to this is a thrust to weight ratio comparable to the F-15 and the use of thrust vectoring in order to achieve a highly maneuverable aircraft; it is perhaps the worlds prieminent fighter at present (at least until the F-22 or F-35 reaches squadron service)
You will note that of all the weapons shown by the diagram of the F-18, only one is an air to air weapon; the venerable AIM-7 Sparrow.
Tattila:
The Japanese carriers were basically constructed in a similar manner, but the US carriers developed better damage control procedures esp in regards to fire. If those carriers had been US carriers, at least two would have survived, (but they would have been out of action for at least a year)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Panag:
US carriers would NOT have room for 97 aircraft. Impossible. 60 combat aircraft in 5 squadrons would pretty much be the max. Of course, with 5 carriers that would mean 300 combat aircraft, a total which only Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany would be able to put up against, and not all with the combat capability of the F/A-18 or the F-14.
According to a major study, the most recent F/A-18E Super Hornet would basically be basically the equal of the the russian Su-35/37 Super Flanker, slightly inferior to the french Rafale figher, considerably inferior to the Eurofighter, and at a major disadvantage against the US F-22 Raptor. As far as I know it was not compared to the F-15 but I would believe it would be inferior also.
So, as of today, a major US Navy carrier fleet would probably be enough to overwhelm most enemy and allied air forces. In a couple of years, however, it probably won't until the JSF goes into service in major numbers.
The major advantage of US fighers is of course their ground-attack capability especially that of the F-16 and F/A-18 dual-role aircraft. Add to this de even more powerful F-15E and F-117 and the true might of the US airforce comes into play.
Still, with only carriers against it, the Rest of the World could put up a winning fight! |
hi ,
all of the CVN's have room for 85 aircraft , this tends to be a mix of 65 combat plans , some for inflight refueling , awacs , search and rescue and some transports , .....
with a deckspace of up to at least 32 more , .....
these are the specs from the USS CVN 68 NIMITZ , ....
Builder Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant Two Nuclear Power Plant (A4W Pressurized Water Reactor)
Four shafts, Four propellers, with five blades each
Length, overall 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement Approx. 97,000 tons (87,300 metric tons) full load
Speed 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft 85
Aircraft elevators Four
Catapults Four
Crew Ship's Company: 3,200
Air Wing: 2,480
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2003 18:03
yes... just put that in there to... check... that anyone was paying attention... 
Attachment: 
|
