Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415
Results 211 to 225 of 225

Thread: Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

  1. #211
    Patron
    Join Date
    19 Oct 06
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    It wouldn't work as you detail above. Has to be a high altitude burst.

    *Grape, a 1500 mile range on a Tom nuclear isint sufficient?
    Target acquistion and guidance are the problem, as well as the fact that to do what you describe does require a high-altitude air burst, something TLAM doesn't do.

  2. #212
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    [QUOTE=fitz;467079]Great. You described a missile (Tactical Tomahawk) that didn't exist when the last Iowa class battleship was in commission, in a version (nuclear) that does not exist to this day and give it capabilities (high-altitude air-burst) that it does not have.

    Why stop there? Whey not just give the Iowa's phaser cannons and photon torpedo's?

    *Look friend I merely made a typo. The Tomahawk nuclear version was in service at the time specified (And noted as carried aboard). If I made a typo as I admitted then whats with the rooster bantering? If I wanted too I could have ripped apart a great deal of your posts if you really want me to be accurate.

    If you didnt read the above then I guess I will spell it out for you then.

    The second system is the Tomahawk Weapons System. This is an offensive missile system which gives the Iowa class a very long-range strike capability against both surface and land targets. The Iowas generally carry thirty-two BGM-109 series missiles in eight Armored Box Launchers. Each box launcher holds a cluster of 4 missiles.

    The Tomahawk series has three basic configurations: the Anti-Ship Missile (TASM); the Land-Attack Missile-Conventional (TLAM-C); and the Land-Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N). All variants are similar in appearance and use the same airframe body and launcher.

    The firing weight of the Tomahawk is 2,650 pounds plus a 550 pound booster. It has a cruising speed of 0.5 Mach and an attack speed of 0.75 Mach. The TASM has an operating range of 250nm and a maximum range of 470nm, TLAM-C has a maximum range of 675nm and TLAM-N a maximum range of 1,500nm.

    All listed as load out on the Iowa Class. So yes it was in service at the time and yes it most certainly did exisit.

    Is that enough to satisfy your comments?

    As far as your laser and photons: Actually I wouldn't mind using the newer railgun tech. A test just showed Mach 7 at excellent accuracy. Coming to a warship near you. Very soon)


    I thought we were not allowing outside help? Indeed, I believe you were the one who said it, just a few posts back.

    From last posts: "Now just for a twist in this arguement let's rehash a few points. The two ships alone and without escort nor other means outside of their own communications sats. War is imminent. Somebody is sinking and swimming. The rule book is out." Read much?

    This is fascinating. Most open-sources give SPS-49 an effective range of 400km against large air targets. It is an air search radar after all.

    Just where do you see the designation SPS-49 in there? If I can remember posting the information in books is not always correct.

    DECOYS: SLQ-25A Nixie towed torpedo decoy. [/qote]

    A torpedo decoy that would be ineffective against the fish carried by Kirov which employ wake-homing terminal guidance in anti-ship mode.

    Did you know that you "Ruskie" uses something very simuliar to this?

    Do you need me to prove this?

    TLAM is not TACTOM. You said TACTOM. The original TLAM can not do what you described in your earlier post. TACTOM could do the navigation bit, but not the high altitude air burst. Nuff said.
    At last time I checked the nuclear version of the Tomahawk does not need an impact to do its job and it is pre programmed from the get go before it leaves.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Mar 08, at 22:20.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  3. #213
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    "A torpedo decoy that would be ineffective against the fish carried by Kirov which employ wake-homing terminal guidance in anti-ship mode."

    Then I guess Soviets may have the same fears as the USN when it comes to torpedoes because your "Ruskie" carries them as well.


    DECOYS:
    Two twin 150 mm chaff launchers.
    Towed torpedo decoy.

    I am a guy that dont mind sharing info, If you want I will give you links for the Kirovs.

    As far as the pics of Kirov goes though I will supply a link. Along with comments. I try to respect other peoples work as best I can and getting these kind of pics arent that easy for most of us. I'm guessing the photographer was Soviet.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 Mar 08, at 22:37.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  4. #214
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    SYSTEMS OF NOTE:
    LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS: The battleships have sufficient Food, water, fuel and amenities to support up to 1500 people for up to 6 months. In an emergency the battleship can support up to 3000 people at one time, though living conditions onboard will get extremely cramped at that point.
    LONG-RANGE LASER/SATELLITE RELAY COMMUNICATIONS: The impressive communications array of the battleship can communicate with up to 500 craft simultaneously at ranges of up to 900 miles (1,440 km). This range can be boosted indefinitely by using satellites or other spacecraft as to relay communications.
    LONG-RANGE RADAR: The radar array of the battleship is equally as impressive as the communication system, and can track and identify up to 500 craft simultaneously. The radar system has a 2,000 mile/3,200 km range.
    DECOYS: SLQ-25A Nixie towed torpedo decoy.
    Iowas carry enough fuel and chow for 6 months? Where the heck do they store it?

    Your "Facts" come from the Macross role playing web site. It ain't real

    IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIP STATS

    *The missile achieved initial operational capability in 1982 for TASM in surface ships, 1983 for TASM in submarines, 1984 for TLAM in surface ships, and 1987 for TLAM-N. On September 27, 1991, President Bush announced that all tactical nuclear weapons would be removed from US Navy surface ships and attack submarines. The order included all TLAM-Ns, which were placed in storage.
    TLAM-N had been pulled from the surface fleet prior to that. Only about 250 produced and subs got their loadout first then Ticos and Burkes last on the list were the ABL shooters Spru cans and the Iowas.

    There was a big push, late 80s to make sub launched TLAM-Ns part of the nuclear triad. Even though they were a "Tactical" weapon.

    Although you will get no verification (yea or ney) of the Iowas having TLAM-N, it was not part of their loadout. They normally carried 24 TLAM and 8 TASM when all slots in the ABLs were full.

    It wouldn't work as you detail above. Has to be a high altitude burst.

    *Grape, a 1500 mile range on a Tom nuclear isint sufficient?
    No it requires altitude not range for your "Dragons Llair". Tomahawks don't fly that high. Has nothing to do with hitting a target. A low yield surface burst won't give you the effects you need.
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 06 Mar 08, at 13:06.

  5. #215
    Patron
    Join Date
    19 Oct 06
    Posts
    152
    The second system is the Tomahawk Weapons System. This is an offensive missile system which gives the Iowa class a very long-range strike capability against both surface and land targets. The Iowas generally carry thirty-two BGM-109 series missiles in eight Armored Box Launchers. Each box launcher holds a cluster of 4 missiles.

    The Tomahawk series has three basic configurations: the Anti-Ship Missile (TASM); the Land-Attack Missile-Conventional (TLAM-C); and the Land-Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N). All variants are similar in appearance and use the same airframe body and launcher.

    All listed as load out on the Iowa Class. So yes it was in service at the time and yes it most certainly did exisit.

    Just where do you see the designation SPS-49 in there? If I can remember posting the information in books is not always correct.

    At last time I checked the nuclear version of the Tomahawk does not need an impact to do its job and it is pre programmed from the get go before it leaves.
    Wow. So much to consider here.

    What you are proposing to do is use a missile, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N or BGM109A Block 1 for short) that relies on Terrain Comparison for accurate guidance to attack a moving ship in the open ocean at ranges as great as 1,500nm, am I correct? How exactly does this particular weapon accomplish this task? It takes hours, if not days to program a flight and once launched, this missile can not change targets. All the while the Kirov is moving at whatever speed and in whichever direction she chooses. Once launched time of flight to maximum range is about 2 hours during which time of course the target will move further still.

    Of course we are not looking for a direct hit, but you still need to get in the neighborhood to make your EMP scenario work - which presents other problems. For EMP you need a burst high in the atmosphere. Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear is a low-flyer. She has no ability to climb high into the atmosphere to detonate - unless of course this is the same capability secretly used to down TWA 800. Even if Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear could perform such a manuever, this will expose the weapon to detection and attack by the Kirov, which has the ability to detect and engage any high-flying target within approximately 100km.

    But how does an Iowa even find a target 1,500nm away? You claim she has a radar capable of detecting surface ship targets up to 2,000 miles away! This seems a bit odd. Her biggest, most powerful, longest-ranged radar is SPS-49(V)1, a low-frequency long-range air-search set generally credited with an effective range of around 400km against a bomber. According to you however, this is not the radar in question.

    So what other radar systems do we see on the Iowa's.

    Looking at the photo in front of me I see SPS-67(V)1, basically the old SPS-10 surface-search/navigation/snorkel detection radar with new solid-state below-decks equipment. Unless you want to convince me a Knox class frigate can pick out surface ships an ocean away with this puppy I think we can move on.

    SPQ-9 is a short-range, precision, TWS gunfire control radar. Really a non-starter for those kinds of ranges.

    The ships navigation radar is certainly not a candidate, neither are the various gunfire control radars.

    So what is this uber-secret magical miracle radar that makes SPY-1 look like a hot steaming pile of puke, and more importantly, where is it?

    I know, it must be invisible. The first stealth radar. That is the only possible explanation.

    Since you refuse to name this amazing technical device, either because you think your being cute with some special secret knowledge (like Mormon underwear) and it is not mentioned in any of the technical journals or the usual sources, we shall have to give this puppy a name.

    I christen thee the Unicorn because this radar, like the mythical creature from which it gets its name, is about as real.

    So we have a real missile employing imaginary capabilities relying for target detection on a mythical radar.

    This is getting really interesting.

    PS

    SLQ-25A is a what type of decoy?

    An acoustic decoy.

    What type of guidance is used in the 53-65 surface ship torpedo (hint: its not "acoustic")

  6. #216
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by fitz View Post
    Wow. So much to consider here.

    What you are proposing to do is use a missile, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N or BGM109A Block 1 for short) that relies on Terrain Comparison for accurate guidance to attack a moving ship in the open ocean at ranges as great as 1,500nm, am I correct? How exactly does this particular weapon accomplish this task? It takes hours, if not days to program a flight and once launched, this missile can not change targets. All the while the Kirov is moving at whatever speed and in whichever direction she chooses. Once launched time of flight to maximum range is about 2 hours during which time of course the target will move further still.

    Of course we are not looking for a direct hit, but you still need to get in the neighborhood to make your EMP scenario work - which presents other problems. For EMP you need a burst high in the atmosphere. Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear is a low-flyer. She has no ability to climb high into the atmosphere to detonate - unless of course this is the same capability secretly used to down TWA 800. Even if Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear could perform such a manuever, this will expose the weapon to detection and attack by the Kirov, which has the ability to detect and engage any high-flying target within approximately 100km.

    But how does an Iowa even find a target 1,500nm away? You claim she has a radar capable of detecting surface ship targets up to 2,000 miles away! This seems a bit odd. Her biggest, most powerful, longest-ranged radar is SPS-49(V)1, a low-frequency long-range air-search set generally credited with an effective range of around 400km against a bomber. According to you however, this is not the radar in question.

    So what other radar systems do we see on the Iowa's.

    Looking at the photo in front of me I see SPS-67(V)1, basically the old SPS-10 surface-search/navigation/snorkel detection radar with new solid-state below-decks equipment. Unless you want to convince me a Knox class frigate can pick out surface ships an ocean away with this puppy I think we can move on.

    SPQ-9 is a short-range, precision, TWS gunfire control radar. Really a non-starter for those kinds of ranges.

    The ships navigation radar is certainly not a candidate, neither are the various gunfire control radars.

    So what is this uber-secret magical miracle radar that makes SPY-1 look like a hot steaming pile of puke, and more importantly, where is it?

    I know, it must be invisible. The first stealth radar. That is the only possible explanation.

    Since you refuse to name this amazing technical device, either because you think your being cute with some special secret knowledge (like Mormon underwear) and it is not mentioned in any of the technical journals or the usual sources, we shall have to give this puppy a name.

    I christen thee the Unicorn because this radar, like the mythical creature from which it gets its name, is about as real.

    So we have a real missile employing imaginary capabilities relying for target detection on a mythical radar.

    This is getting really interesting.

    PS

    SLQ-25A is a what type of decoy?

    An acoustic decoy.

    What type of guidance is used in the 53-65 surface ship torpedo (hint: its not "acoustic")
    Fritz,
    You can ramble, banter etc. The main goal of the last few posts is to reinforce nothing more then what I have said earlier about all the information thats out there. Grape, was quick to notice it was for war gaming and sensible enough to knock down almost every solution I have offered in this thread. I was waiting until you noticed it. I in all honesty dont know her full range of radar but I am atleast smart enough to know what is in print about the ships and what is fiction put to print. I could for all intense purposes conduct my own survey aboard and write down model, mark#, serial number etc and present it here for all intense purposes but to what end?

    Could you do the very same for your Kirov and be so sure outside of what you read? I have limitied information on her and judging by the quality and time devoted to the information it would seem these gentlemen know more of her capability then anybody I have seen here yet in almost five years as being a member. We are not dealing with reality here as far as the ships confronting each other so why offer realistic solutions to unrealist battle scenarios. I dont know her full capability anymore then you or anybody else here knows the full capability of the Kirov class. So basically all these posts are nothing more then wishfull thinking. The opening of the thread alone should have told you that from the start. So your bantering and jeering and jawing is pretty much falling upon deaf ears with me. I think that so far I have offered intelligent information in alot of areas on the Iowas on numerous threads concerning them and have shared it with people that have worked upon them as well as others interested in them and have learned quite a bit from others here. Jeering over a hypothetical dont do much for me and its extremely surprising this thread has lasted this long.

    If in fact you are so interested in seeing these two battle and compare then why not start a new thread with real time situations and share all of this in depth knowledge you seem to have about the Kirov's and their capabilities as well as service record. I along with others here would be interested as well.

    I will even help you. These links are fairly descent to detail some things including picks about the Kirovs that are taken while under repairs.

    1144 (.2) Kirov class | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces
    TYPE 1144 "KIROV" CLASS

    The above are pretty good links and have many pics.

    As far as what I know about the Iowas. I invite you to come visit me. One mod here (TH) will very shortly and his criticisms are judged pretty fair by most here that I know of. I'll show you more then any books ever will. Atleast you will know instead of reading what the books and websites have to offer.
    Not that they are all bad or anything but you will know what is and what isint by the time we are through.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  7. #217
    Patron
    Join Date
    19 Oct 06
    Posts
    152
    So your answer to this question then is to post information you know to be bulls--- and state it as though it were fact? Or do you really believe most of the crap you have been posting? I can't tell anymore and it certainly isn't giving you any credibility.

    Whatever.

    Goodbye
    Last edited by fitz; 06 Mar 08, at 16:17.

  8. #218
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by fitz View Post
    So your answer to this question then is to post information you know to be bulls--- and state it as though it were fact? Or do you really believe most of the crap you have been posting? I can't tell anymore and it certainly isn't giving you any credibility.

    Whatever.

    Goodbye
    Fritz, You certainly arent capable of judging my credibility in any sense of the word. All I did was play by the rules that the thread dictated namely unrealistic. If you failed to yield to the sense that I repeated numerous times through out the thread namely two different ships two different roles then the failure of understanding is not mine.

    The whatever ending to your comments seems to reveal that you failed to understand the premise of the thread and the warnings given.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  9. #219
    Patron
    Join Date
    19 Oct 06
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Fritz, You certainly arent capable of judging my credibility in any sense of the word. All I did was play by the rules that the thread dictated namely unrealistic. If you failed to yield to the sense that I repeated numerous times through out the thread namely two different ships two different roles then the failure of understanding is not mine.

    The whatever ending to your comments seems to reveal that you failed to understand the premise of the thread and the warnings given.
    A. There is no r in my handle.

    B. I am in a perfect position to judge your character. You have made nothing but assumptions about me I might point out.

    C. Here was the original question:

    i dont believe I have seen a post about this on here, but according to some sources I have read, one of the primary driving forces behind reactivating the Iowas in the 1980s was the Soviet Kirov Class Battlecruiser. My question is, if these two were to encounter each other, who would be the winner? If I am not mistaken, the Kirovs were the closest thing to another battleship that the Iowas could hope to cross swords with.

    What do you think?


    I don't see anything in there about making up invisible radar systems with performance that defy the laws of physics or making up non-existant capabilities for existing weapons to try to gain an edge.

    I understand that these are different ships with different roles. So what? What does that have to do with what would happen if they went mano-a-mano in the big blue? That was the question after all. Ships don't have to be perfectly matched to pose such hypothetical questions now do they? Heck, if you want to talk about different ships for different roles a few years ago I was involved in a similar discussion pairing the Bismark against an FFG-7. No less than Norman Friedman got involved in that one. That was not only different ships for different roles but different era's to boot. Just because such out-of-time scanario's are pointless and silly doesn't mean you can't have a serious, meaningful discussion about them.

  10. #220
    Seņor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    Dreadnought & Fitz , shame your personal Battle of Jutland seems to get too agressive , this thread has been most interesting ....
    Try to keep it going , please ? There have been answers to questions I´d never even thought about .
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  11. #221
    Patron
    Join Date
    19 Oct 06
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by braindead View Post
    Dreadnought & Fitz , shame your personal Battle of Jutland seems to get too agressive , this thread has been most interesting ....
    Try to keep it going , please ? There have been answers to questions I´d never even thought about .
    A Kirov and an Iowa duking it out alone is of course, silly. Not quite as silly as Bismark and an Perry frigate but silly nontheless. But that doesn't mean one can't learn something from discussing the possibility in a serious fashion.

  12. #222
    Seņor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    Exactly . Theme may be absurd but to layman this thread has been really educational - from history of guided missiles to radar details
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  13. #223
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    30 Apr 08
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    799
    [QUOTE=fitz;467236]But how does an Iowa even find a target 1,500nm away? You claim she has a radar capable of detecting surface ship targets up to 2,000 miles away! This seems a bit odd. Her biggest, most powerful, longest-ranged radar is SPS-49(V)1, a low-frequency long-range air-search set generally credited with an effective range of around 400km against a bomber. According to you however, this is not the radar in question.

    So what other radar systems do we see on the Iowa's.

    Looking at the photo in front of me I see SPS-67(V)1, basically the old SPS-10 surface-search/navigation/snorkel detection radar with new solid-state below-decks equipment. Unless you want to convince me a Knox class frigate can pick out surface ships an ocean away with this puppy I think we can move on.

    SPQ-9 is a short-range, precision, TWS gunfire control radar. Really a non-starter for those kinds of ranges.

    The ships navigation radar is certainly not a candidate, neither are the various gunfire control radars.

    So what is this uber-secret magical miracle radar that makes SPY-1 look like a hot steaming pile of puke, and more importantly, where is it?

    I know, it must be invisible. The first stealth radar. That is the only possible explanation.

    Since you refuse to name this amazing technical device, either because you think your being cute with some special secret knowledge (like Mormon underwear) and it is not mentioned in any of the technical journals or the usual sources, we shall have to give this puppy a name.

    I christen thee the Unicorn because this radar, like the mythical creature from which it gets its name, is about as real.
    [QUOTE]

    Hello, I am new on the boards here, but I did want to make a comment. And sorry for bumping an older thread.

    I served on the Iowa from 1986-1990. Radar wasn't really an option for providing targeting data for Tomahawk antiship missiles. By the time a ship got close enough to be picked up by surface search radars, it was already in range for Harpoons, and they were a far better option for attacking surface targets that close. Initial targeting information for the longer range Tomahawks was provided by satellite, or by accompanying aircraft/surface ships/submarines, or in some cases by the Unamanned aerial vehicles which the Iowa carried. I imagine the same would be true for the Kirov's.

  14. #224
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    The ships navigation radar is certainly not a candidate, neither are the various gunfire control radars.

    So what is this uber-secret magical miracle radar that makes SPY-1 look like a hot steaming pile of puke, and more importantly, where is it?

    I know, it must be invisible. The first stealth radar. That is the only possible explanation.

    Since you refuse to name this amazing technical device, either because you think your being cute with some special secret knowledge (like Mormon underwear) and it is not mentioned in any of the technical journals or the usual sources, we shall have to give this puppy a name.

    I christen thee the Unicorn because this radar, like the mythical creature from which it gets its name, is about as real.



    Hmm a Unicorn you say?:)


    ROME (AP) - A deer with a single horn in the center of its head - much like the fabled, mythical unicorn - has been spotted in a nature preserve in Italy, park officials said Wednesday.

    "This is fantasy becoming reality," Gilberto Tozzi, director of the Center of Natural Sciences in Prato, told The Associated Press. "The unicorn has always been a mythological animal."

    The 1-year-old Roe Deer - nicknamed "Unicorn" - was born in captivity in the research center's park in the Tuscan town of Prato, near Florence, Tozzi said.

    He is believed to have been born with a genetic flaw; his twin has two horns.


    Calling it the first time he has seen such a case, Tozzi said such anomalies among deer may have inspired the myth of the unicorn.

    The unicorn, a horse-like creature with magical healing powers, has appeared in legends and stories throughout history, from ancient and medieval texts to the adventures of Harry Potter.

    "This shows that even in past times, there could have been animals with this anomaly," he said by telephone. "It's not like they dreamed it up."

    Single-horned deer are rare but not unheard of - but even more unusual is the central positioning of the horn, experts said.

    "Generally, the horn is on one side (of the head) rather than being at the center. This looks like a complex case," said Fulvio Fraticelli, scientific director of Rome's zoo. He said the position of the horn could also be the result of a trauma early in the animal's life.

    Other mammals are believed to contribute to the myth of the unicorn, including the narwhal, a whale with a long, spiraling tusk.




    .
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 11 Jun 08, at 18:52.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  15. #225
    Patron Michigan_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Feb 07
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    218
    Interesting....
    "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
    -General George Patton Jr.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Navies Listing (updated 3/29/05)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 26 Apr 05,, 19:08
  2. World Navies(Completed)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03 Apr 05,, 06:27
  3. World Navies
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31 Mar 05,, 23:57
  4. World Navies Edited and Updated
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26 Mar 05,, 03:02
  5. Greatly Revised Rankings
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20 Mar 05,, 11:51

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •