StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It is 1866 and Italy's ironclad fleet has set sail to capture the Austrian Island fortress of Vis, better know as Lissa. Historically the Italians where intercepted by an Austrian fleet which despite it lack of effective armor piercing guns managed to sink two major Italian warships by ramming in the first battle between Ironclad fleets.

In this Scenario RAN Melbourne, Australia carrier renown for its ability to sink its own escorts, has traveled through a space time warp, which has taken her to the Adriatic, directly in the path of the Italians, just like a certain USN carrier..

Mysteriously while Melbourne aircraft and aircraft fuel stocks are gone, but she has her full designed WW2 gun fit and a reinforced bow with ram. Can Melbourne defeat the Italian fleet?

Which USN carrier are you talking about, BTW?

Cyril wrote:Which USN carrier are you talking about, BTW?

Nimitz in Finnal Countdown.

I check the bio of the Melbourne. Im not superstitious, but that ship is bad luck!

Oh yeah, everyone mock the Melbourne....

Sure it was a bad voodoo ship but hey.

weemadando wrote:Oh yeah, everyone mock the Melbourne....

Sure it was a bad voodoo ship but hey.

She does have a 10 knot speed advantage and most of the Italian ships have lots of rigging to set fire to. It would be a most interesting fight.

weemadando wrote:Oh yeah, everyone mock the Melbourne....

Sure it was a bad voodoo ship but hey.

HEY, I voted for the Melbourne.

weemadando wrote:Oh yeah, everyone mock the Melbourne....

Sure it was a bad voodoo ship but hey.

Just tell her she's the Italian's reinforcements. That'll finish them!

Stormbringer wrote:

weemadando wrote:Oh yeah, everyone mock the Melbourne....

Sure it was a bad voodoo ship but hey.

Just tell her she's the Italian's reinforcements. That'll finish them!

ROFLMAO


Thats too good

Well without aircraft, what the hell is the point of an aircraft carrier? anyway, since she was easily able to sink an Australian Destroyer without firing a shot, killing hundreds of the Victory's (was it Victory or Vampire?) crew by sinking it (accidently) in a matter of minutes, I'd say in this case, the Italians are screwed... but so would it be. It'd have to limp back to shore and then be used for making kettles and toasters from for years to come <g>.

And the Itlian Fleet, sinks itself. Either by firing on their cmrades too show their good fortune too the Austrailian Fleet, or they the Italian Fleet sinks because they accidently hit and sink each other while retreating. Basically, the Melbourne doesn't have too fire a shot.

jenat-lai wrote:Well without aircraft, what the hell is the point of an aircraft carrier? anyway, since she was easily able to sink an Australian Destroyer without firing a shot, killing hundreds of the Victory's (was it Victory or Vampire?) crew by sinking it (accidently) in a matter of minutes, I'd say in this case, the Italians are screwed... but so would it be. It'd have to limp back to shore and then be used for making kettles and toasters from for years to come <g>.

Actually she sank two destroyers in her carrier by ramming. That&#8217;s the whole point. A ship, which proved, adapt at ramming vs. a fleet that was defeated by ramming.

I voted for the Italians, simply because I doubt there's more than a handfull of people here who have even HEARD of Lissa. Go Affondatore go!

Frank Hipper wrote:I voted for the Italians, simply because I doubt there's more than a handfull of people here who have even HEARD of Lissa. Go Affondatore go!

Well I did consider posting pictures of the carrier and battle, but I couldn't find the one I wanted online of Lissa and gave up on the idea.

Wait...it's an aircraft carrier that rams other ships?

I guess when you said 'Paint the kills on the bow' you mean it literally.

Eeew.

Cyril wrote:Wait...it's an aircraft carrier that rams other ships?

I guess when you said 'Paint the kills on the bow' you mean it literally.

Eeew.

Yup.

RAN Melbourne is renown for the fact that not once but twice it rammed and sank one of its escorts, suffering minimal damage both times.