Ship Cards for the Game BATTLESHIPS!

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Ship cards for the Game BATTLESHIPS! http://scouter.wikidot.com/game-battleships BLUE SUBMARINE BLUE SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship BLUE SUBMARINE BLUE SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship BLUE SUBMARINE BLUE SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship BLUE DESTROYER BLUE DESTROYER Destroyer sinks Submarine Destroyer sinks Submarine BLUE DESTROYER BLUE DESTROYER Destroyer sinks Submarine Destroyer sinks Submarine BLUE BATTLESHIP BLUE BATTLESHIP Battleship sinks Destroyer Battleship sinks Destroyer Ship cards for the Game BATTLESHIPS! http://scouter.wikidot.com/game-battleships RED SUBMARINE RED SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship RED SUBMARINE RED SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship RED SUBMARINE RED SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship RED DESTROYER RED DESTROYER Destroyer sinks Submarine Destroyer sinks Submarine RED DESTROYER RED DESTROYER Destroyer sinks Submarine Destroyer sinks Submarine RED BATTLESHIP RED BATTLESHIP Battleship sinks Destroyer Battleship sinks Destroyer Ship cards for the Game BATTLESHIPS! http://scouter.wikidot.com/game-battleships YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship YELLOW SUBMARINE YELLOW SUBMARINE Submarine sinks Battleship Submarine sinks Battleship YELLOW DESTROYER YELLOW DESTROYER Destroyer sinks Submarine Destroyer sinks Submarine YELLOW DESTROYER YELLOW DESTROYER Destroyer sinks Submarine Destroyer sinks Submarine YELLOW BATTLESHIP YELLOW BATTLESHIP Battleship sinks Destroyer Battleship sinks Destroyer .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Navy Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 14, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41129 Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program Summary The Navy’s Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program is a program to design and build a class of 12 new SSBNs to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 aging Ohio-class SSBNs. Since 2013, the Navy has consistently identified the Columbia-class program as the Navy’s top priority program. The Navy procured the first Columbia-class boat in FY2021 and wants to procure the second boat in the class in FY2024. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $3,003.0 (i.e., $3.0 billion) in procurement funding for the first Columbia-class boat and $1,644.0 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in advance procurement (AP) funding for the second boat, for a combined FY2022 procurement and AP funding request of $4,647.0 million (i.e., about $4.6 billion). The Navy’s FY2022 budget submission estimates the procurement cost of the first Columbia- class boat at $15,030.5 million (i.e., about $15.0 billion) in then-year dollars, including $6,557.6 million (i.e., about $6.60 billion) in costs for plans, meaning (essentially) the detail design/nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the Columbia class. (It is a long-standing Navy budgetary practice to incorporate the DD/NRE costs for a new class of ship into the total procurement cost of the first ship in the class.) Excluding costs for plans, the estimated hands-on construction cost of the first ship is $8,473.0 million (i.e., about $8.5 billion).
[Show full text]
THE FEASIBLITY of the OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT for U.S. NAVY and MARINE CORPS FORCES a Thesis Presented To
THE FEASIBLITY OF THE OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT FOR U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FORCES A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Colege in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE STEPHEN L. GOERTZEN, LCDR, USN B.S., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 1993 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Name of Candidate: LCDR Stephen L. Goertzen, USN Thesis Title: The Feasibility of the Over-the-Horizon Amphibious Assault for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Forces Approved by: u , Thesis Committee Chaiman LTCOL W. A. Sp , Member Accepted this 4th day of June 1993 by: , Director, Graduate Degree Philip J. Brookes, Ph.D. Programs The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.) ABSTRACT THE FEASIBILITY OF THE OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT FOR U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FORCES: An analysis of the doctrine, equipment, and technology contributing to the feasibility of the over-the-horizon amphibious assault. By Lieutenant Commander Stephen L. Goertzen, USN, 128 pages. This study is an analysis of the tactics,techniques, procedures, doctrine, equipment, and technology utilized in over-the-horizon amphibious assaults. The study examines the issues surrounding current feasibility of the assault, as well as future feasibility of the assault.
[Show full text]
Gao-20-257T, Navy Maintenance
United States Government Accountability Office Testimony Before the Subcommittees on Seapower and Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET Wednesday, December 4, 2019 NAVY MAINTENANCE Persistent and Substantial Ship and Submarine Maintenance Delays Hinder Efforts to Rebuild Readiness Statement of Diana C. Maurer Director Defense Capabilities and Management GAO-20-257T December 4, 2019 NAVY MAINTENANCE Persistent and Substantial Ship and Submarine Maintenance Delays Hinder Efforts to Rebuild Readiness Highlights of GAO-20-257T, a testimony before the Subcommittees on Seapower and Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The 2018 National Defense Strategy The Navy continues to face persistent and substantial maintenance delays that emphasizes that restoring and retaining affect the majority of its maintenance efforts and hinder its attempts to restore readiness is critical to success in the readiness. From fiscal year 2014 to the end of fiscal year 2019, Navy ships have emerging security environment. The spent over 33,700 more days in maintenance than expected. The Navy was Navy is working to rebuild its readiness unable to complete scheduled ship maintenance on time for about 75 percent of while also growing and modernizing its the maintenance periods conducted during fiscal years 2014 through 2019, with aging fleet of ships. A critical component more than half of the delays in fiscal year 2019 exceeding 90 days. When of rebuilding Navy readiness is maintenance is not completed on time, fewer ships are available for training or implementing sustainable operational operations, which can hinder readiness.
[Show full text]
Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Events .................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................... A-1 A.1.2 Munitions .............................................................................................................. A-7 A.1.3 Targets ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures ............................................................................... A-13 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16 A.2 Training Activities ..................................................................................................
[Show full text]
A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations from 1941 to the Present
CRM D0006297.A2/ Final July 2002 Charting the Pathway to OMFTS: A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations From 1941 to the Present Carter A. Malkasian 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: July 2002 c.. Expedit'onaryyystems & Support Team Integrated Systems and Operations Division This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N0014-00-D-0700. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Copyright 0 2002 The CNA Corporation Contents Summary . 1 Introduction . 5 Methodology . 6 The U.S. Marine Corps’ new concept for forcible entry . 9 What is the purpose of amphibious warfare? . 15 Amphibious warfare and the strategic level of war . 15 Amphibious warfare and the operational level of war . 17 Historical changes in amphibious warfare . 19 Amphibious warfare in World War II . 19 The strategic environment . 19 Operational doctrine development and refinement . 21 World War II assault and area denial tactics. 26 Amphibious warfare during the Cold War . 28 Changes to the strategic context . 29 New operational approaches to amphibious warfare . 33 Cold war assault and area denial tactics . 35 Amphibious warfare, 1983–2002 . 42 Changes in the strategic, operational, and tactical context of warfare. 42 Post-cold war amphibious tactics . 44 Conclusion . 46 Key factors in the success of OMFTS. 49 Operational pause . 49 The causes of operational pause . 49 i Overcoming enemy resistance and the supply buildup.
[Show full text]
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32665 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S. policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115- 91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships, a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs). On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.
[Show full text]
The Cost of the Navy's New Frigate
OCTOBER 2020 The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate On April 30, 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri Several factors support the Navy’s estimate: Marinette Marine a contract to build the Navy’s new sur- face combatant, a guided missile frigate long designated • The FFG(X) is based on a design that has been in as FFG(X).1 The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will production for many years. build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the Navy options to build as many as nine addi- • Little if any new technology is being developed for it. tional ships. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines the potential costs if the Navy exercises • The contractor is an experienced builder of small all of those options. surface combatants. • CBO estimates the cost of the 10 FFG(X) ships • An independent estimate within the Department of would be $12.3 billion in 2020 (inflation-adjusted) Defense (DoD) was lower than the Navy’s estimate. dollars, about $1.2 billion per ship, on the basis of its own weight-based cost model. That amount is Other factors suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low: 40 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. • The costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as • The Navy estimates that the 10 ships would measured per thousand tons, were higher. cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship. • Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more • If the Navy’s estimate turns out to be accurate, expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs the FFG(X) would be the least expensive surface for the follow-on ships.
[Show full text]
The Submarine and the Washington Conference Of
477 THE SUBMARINE AND THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1921 Lawrence H. Douglas Following the First World War, the tation of this group, simply stated, was tide of public opinion was overwhelm that second best in naval strength meant ingly against the submarine as a weapon last. A policy of naval superiority was of war. The excesses of the German necessary, they felt, for "history consis U-boat had stunned the sensibilities of tently shows that war between no two the world but had, nonetheless, pre peoples or nations can be unthink sented new ideas and possibilities of this able.,,1 A second group, the Naval weapon to the various naval powers of Advisory Committee (Admirals Pratt the time. The momentum of these new and Coontz and Assistant Secretary of ideas proved so strong that by the the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.) also opening of the first major international submitted recommendations concerning disarmament conference of the 20th the limitation of naval armaments. century, practical uses of the submarine From the outset their deliberations were had all but smothered the moral indig guided by a concern that had become nation of 1918. more and more apparent-the threat Several months prior to the opening posed to the security and interests of of the conference, the General Board of this country by Japan. This concern was the American Navy was given the task evidenced in an attempt to gain basic of developing guidelines and recommen understandings with Britain. dations to be used by the State Depart The submarine received its share of ment in determining the American attention in the deliberations of these proposals to be presented.
[Show full text]
The Law of Submarine Warfare Today
Jacobson 205 Chapter VIII The Law of Submarine Warfare Today by Jon L. Jacobson* Introduction he roles of military submarines have evolved throughout the twentieth T century. In wartime, these roles have included coastal defense, harassment of enemy fleets, and, especially in World War II, hunting and destroying the seaborne commerce that supported the enemy's war efforts. Today, two principal roles for u.s. submarines, at least in any future war with the Soviet Union, are probably as anti-submarine weapons (attack submarines) and as strategic weapons platforms (ballistic missile submarines). Other missions, however, could include coastal defense, attacks on the enemy's surface fleet, projection of force ashore, and commerce warfare.1 The laws of war have never been comfortable with the submarine's unique combination of stealth and vulnerability. As will be explained below, it is this peculiar mix of strength and weakness that can be blamed as the root cause of the legal dilemma, particularly as it relates to the submarine's role as a commerce raider. The legal responses to this twentieth-century weapons platform have ranged from early proposals for its abolition to justification of its use under the rules of reprisal to tolerance of it as an effective war machine with characteristics that regrettably require some adjustments in the traditional laws of war. The U.s. Navy's new Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 9) includes references to the laws of naval warfare that specifically address the submarine weapons system and also rules that apply, or can apply, to submarines and their roles in wartime.
[Show full text]
NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT VESSEL: Ex- USS Pigeon (ASR-21)
NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT VESSEL: ex- USS Pigeon (ASR-21) USS Pigeon (ASR-21) underway. Pigeon was the first of two catamaran-hulled SRVs. Location and date are unknown. http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/32/3221.htm Vessel History The USS Pigeon (ASR-21) was the first of two catamaran-hulled submarine rescue vessels commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1973. Alabama Drydock and Shipbuilding Company in Mobile, Alabama won the construction contract on November 15, 1967. Its keel was laid on July 17, 1968 and it was launched on August 13, 1969. Pigeon was commissioned on April 28, 1973. It was the navy’s third vessel that carried the name. Pigeon was assigned to the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet, spending most of its career homeported at Naval Base San Diego. Its sistership, the USS Ortolan (ASR-22) was assigned to the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Virginia. The Pigeon spent the next two decades in readiness for the submarine disaster that fortunately never occurred. It spent frequent periods at sea conducting drills and training, including general training in saturation diving. The Pigeon successfully performed the navy’s first open ocean working saturation dive when it recovered the engine and ejection seat of an F-14 jet fighter that had crashed in 730 feet of water. The construction and design of the ships were a result of the loss of the nuclear-submarine USS Thresher (SSN-593) in the deep waters of the North Atlantic in April 1963, and the subsequent loss of a hydrogen bomb in the western Mediterranean off of Spain’s coast in January 1966.
[Show full text]
Wisconsin Veterans Museum Research Center Transcript of An
Wisconsin Veterans Museum Research Center Transcript of an Oral History Interview with DONALD LIEBMANN, U. S. Navy, World War II 2003 OH 349 1 OH 349 Liebmann, Donald, (1923- ), Oral History Interview, 2003 User copy, 1 sound cassette (ca. 25 min.), analog, 1 7/8 ips, mono. Master copy, 1 sound cassette (ca. 25 min.), analog, 1 7/8 ips, mono. ABSTRACT The Preble (now known as Green Bay), Wis. native discusses his World War II service as an engineering officer aboard LSM (Landing Ship Medium) 129. He talks about participation in Naval ROTC at Marquette University (Milwaukee, Wis.), meeting his crew in Charleston (South Carolina), and shakedown cruse. Liebmann mentions rescuing the crew of a torpedoed LST, landing at Palawan and other Pacific islands, his opinion of the atomic bomb, discharge from the service, and joining his family’s business after the war. Biographical Sketch Liebmann (b. May 6, 1923) served with the Navy in the Pacific theater of World War II. He was an officer aboard LSM 129. Interviewed by John K. Driscoll, Wisconsin Veterans Museum Volunteer, 2003. Transcribed by John K. Driscoll, Wisconsin Veterans Museum Volunteer, 2003. Transcript edited by Abigail Miller, 2003. 2 Interview Transcript John: This is John Driscoll, and I am a volunteer with the Wisconsin Veterans Museum. And we are at Chula Vista Resort, in the Dells. Today is June 2, 2003. And we are talking today with Don Liebmann, a veteran of the United States Navy in World War II. Don, before we get started, can I get your home address? Liebmann: 508 South Langlade Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
[Show full text]
Submarine Rescue Capability and Its Challenges
X Submarine Rescue Capability and its Challenges 41496_DSTA 4-15#150Q.indd 1 5/6/10 1:08 AM ABSTRACT Providing rescue to the crew of a disabled submarine is of paramount concern to many submarine-operating nations. Various rescue systems are in operation around the world. In 2007, the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) acquired a rescue service through a Public–Private Partnership. With a locally based solution to achieve this time-critical mission, the rescue capability of the RSN has been greatly enhanced. Dr Koh Hock Seng Chew Yixin Ng Xinyun 41496_DSTA 4-15#150Q.indd 2 5/6/10 1:08 AM Submarine Rescue Capability and its Challenges 6 “…[The] disaster was to hand Lloyd B. Maness INTRODUCTION a cruel duty. He was nearest the hatch which separated the flooding sections from the On Tuesday 23 May 1939, USS Squalus, the dry area. If he didn’t slam shut that heavy newest fleet-type submarine at that time metal door everybody on board might perish. for the US Navy, was sailing out of the Maness waited until the last possible moment, Portsmouth Navy Yard for her 19th test dive permitting the passage of a few men soaked in the ocean. This was an important trial for by the incoming sea water. Then, as water the submarine before it could be deemed poured through the hatchway… he slammed seaworthy to join the fleet. USS Squalus was shut the door on the fate of those men aft.” required to complete an emergency battle descent – a ‘crash test’ – by dropping to a The Register Guard, 24 May 1964 periscope depth of 50 feet (about 15 metres) within a minute.
[Show full text]