Jump to content


[Suggestion] Pensacola tech rework

Pensacola USS Pensacola

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

piritskenyer #1 Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Supertester

  • 2,307
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Hi gents, 

 

As many of you know, we have USS Pensacola as the current T7 US CA, and now that USS Indianapolis is coming up as a T7 prem CA, I thought it would be a good time to take a good hard look at her, so I called up Trainspite to help me out a bit. Much of the credit for all of this in here goes to him directly.

So, first things first: The Pensacola. Very very divisive ship in the community, with some people hating her to the core, and some people swearing by it. I'm not ging to lie, and most of you know this already, I'm in the second camp, although from time to time she infuriates me.

Now why is she so divisive?

That is down to the quite hard shift in the tech tree between the Cleveland class and the Pensacola class. Pensacola was built more than a decade before Cleveland, and was designed and originally designated as a light cruiser with heavy armament. The Washington Naval Treat however made so that she was to be redesignated as a heavy cruiser.

As light cruisers, Pensacola and Salt Lake City were relatively thinly armoured (4" max thickness on the main belt), but had very powerful machinery, with really high design speed for the time. They also got a hugely tall tripod mainmast, but more on that later.

How all of the above translates into game terms is probably all tooo familiar to most of you:

  • She is fast (not IJN-fast, but still a good turn of speed)
  • She has very good handling
  • She has no realy armour to speak of when it comes to handling accurate enemy fire from anything more powerfully armed than a T5 CL
  • And because of that tall tripod mainmast she can be seen fro the moon. No, really, she can be seen before she gets a chance to fire her guns.

 

Posted Image

 

Also, as it so happens, she has more than a few ahistoric features in game. We aim to rectify all of the above problems we can, based on her service history and refits. 

 

Posted Image

Here we see the superstructure of Myoko to the left, to the right we have Pensacola's 1945 refit superstructure and her 1942 configuration with the infamous mainmast

 

Posted Image

Pensacola compared to Myoko. Note how much taller Pensacola is as completed. (Picture credits to Trainspite)

 

So here is the suggestion in gross lines:

  • reworking her hull options:
    • A hull, as she was completed
    • B hull, 1942 refit 
    • C hull, 1945 refit
  • Changing the gun choices currently available, removing the ahistoric " 8"/50 Mk14 " guns (the US naval arsenals never had an 8"/50 calibre weapon)
    • as a side effect, changing the AP ammunition.

 

Hull reworks:

 

  • A hull

1929 hull, as built and comissioned.

  • Armament:
    • 10x 8"/55 (203mm) Mk9 guns in two twin and two triple turrets, firing the 8" Mk19 mod 1 AP projectile for a maximum damage of 4500.
    • 2x triple 533mm (21") torpedo tubes, firing Mk11 or 12 torpedoes
    • 4x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
  • AA:
    • 4x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
    • 4x .50cal (12,7mm) M2 HMG
  • Detection range: 15.7km

 

Now this hull features the guns she was originally fitted with, those would have the exact same characteristichs as the ahistorical L/50 weapons that we have now as stock.

This hull also features torpedoes, last in the regular tech tree. The torps were mounted in the after superstructure, and from what we could gather had very good arcs. These, however are the same torpedoes found on the Omaha, the Mk11. If we want to have stronger ones, we could give her the Mk 12's for higher damage (IRL the Mk 12 went slower and a wee further than the Mk11 but was otherwise the same).

You can see that she has nonexistent AA, she was completed in 1929 after all.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

  • B hull

1942 hull, basically a mix of what we now have as the base hull in game, but with the top guns. Her hull configuration from before the battle of Tassafaronga.

  • Armament:
    • 10x 8"/55 (203mm) Mk14 guns in two twin and two triple turrets, firing the 8" Mk19 mod 6 AP projectile for a maximum damage of 4600.
    • 8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
  • AA: 
    • ​8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
    • 4x quad 1.1"/75 (28mm) AA guns
    • 8x 20mm/70 Oerlikon guns
  • Detection range: 15km

 

What we see here is the state she was in in 1942. 

  • The top spotting room on the main mast is gone, replaced by a rangefinder, that knocks off an ever so slight part of visibility. 
  • Torpedoes now have been deleted as per decision of navy analysis determining them to be more of a risk than a potent weapon
  • The guns are the exact same as we already have in game.
  • AA has been augmented. Still not very good, but it's at least good enough for self defence.

 

Spoiler

 

  • C hull

1945 refit. Better than we have now in game.

  • Armament:
    • 10x 8"/55 (203mm) Mk14 guns in two twin and two triple turrets, firing the 8" Mk19 mod 6 AP projectile for a maximum damage of 4600.
    • 8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
  • AA:
    • ​8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
    • 7x quad 40mm/56 Bofors guns
    • 9x double 20mm/70 Oerlikon guns
  • Detection range: 13,5km 13.2km

 

Here is her final refit from 1945. She had her incredibly tall mast cut down, had a platform and short tower installed. She is not as tall as battleships anymore. Her AA was substantially upgraded in 1943 to what we have in game now, and again in 1945 to what I have listed here.

Other changes:

  • Deletion of starboard catapult.
  • Both funnels are capped
Spoiler

 

Her other characteristics should remain unchanged, notably speed, healthpool, maneuverability, air detection range, all that jazz.

 

Sources:

http://www.navweaps.com/

http://www.navsource...4/024/04024.htm

http://www.shipbucket.com/


Edited by piritskenyer, 24 May 2016 - 10:09 PM.

"Friendly torpedos aren't."

Arguing with [stupid] people on the internet

Common projects with Trainspite:

Wichita proposal  Pensacola rework


VC381 #2 Posted 19 May 2016 - 09:15 PM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,813
  • Member since:
    02-03-2016

Overall agreed. I'm in the pro-Pensacola camp as well, the ship is great fun!

 

One counterpoint though, her in-game B hull is not ahistorical, it's just a 1943 hull with the cut-down bridge but still original masts (which weren't cut down until later). Are you saying we don't want this version at all then? Just jump from 1942 fit to 1945 fit?

 

Also an easier fix would be to give her logical gun range. In the same way as her concealment is based on the height of that ridiculous (but beautiful) tripod mast, the effective range of guns in game is based on where the main rangefinder is. So her maximum gun range makes no sense, it should be on par with the Soviet cruisers given the height of her fire control position (so between 16.5km and 17km). However this would mean her "C" hull as you suggest would have to lose range as well as gaining concealment. In that case the "C" hull could be a sidegrade rather than an upgrade, making her stealthy and covered in AA but shorter ranged while the B hull would keep her current weakness and compensate with longer range.



T_H_0_R #3 Posted 19 May 2016 - 09:27 PM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

Another Pensa fan here. Great fun if you know how to handle her.

 

Seconded with VC381 - would opt for maintaining current Hull B as is, and then adding the new one with better concealment. Gun range can stay the same IMHO for balance purposes.



KptStrzyga #4 Posted 19 May 2016 - 10:23 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester

  • 4,182
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Thx for very interesting read. For me Pensa was grind-sell-forget tho. 

Edited by KptStrzyga, 19 May 2016 - 10:23 PM.

trigger warning: I SEXUALLY IDENTIFY AS CAPS LOCK BUTTON SO STOP BEING INTOLERANT AND DON`T DISCRIMINATE ME FOR USING CAPITAL LETTERS


Xerkics #5 Posted 19 May 2016 - 10:47 PM

    Midshipman

  • Beta Tester

  • 1,217
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013
Ye really hope they give her a newer hull without such a giant spotting range.

piritskenyer #6 Posted 20 May 2016 - 10:27 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Supertester

  • 2,307
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostVC381, on 19 May 2016 - 09:15 PM, said:

Overall agreed. I'm in the pro-Pensacola camp as well, the ship is great fun!

 

One counterpoint though, her in-game B hull is not ahistorical, it's just a 1943 hull with the cut-down bridge but still original masts (which weren't cut down until later). Are you saying we don't want this version at all then? Just jump from 1942 fit to 1945 fit?

 

Also an easier fix would be to give her logical gun range. In the same way as her concealment is based on the height of that ridiculous (but beautiful) tripod mast, the effective range of guns in game is based on where the main rangefinder is. So her maximum gun range makes no sense, it should be on par with the Soviet cruisers given the height of her fire control position (so between 16.5km and 17km). However this would mean her "C" hull as you suggest would have to lose range as well as gaining concealment. In that case the "C" hull could be a sidegrade rather than an upgrade, making her stealthy and covered in AA but shorter ranged while the B hull would keep her current weakness and compensate with longer range.

 

The 1943 layout is the same that SLC had, but SLC did not recieve the 1945 refit. We established with Trainspite that SLC could fit in the 1943 (so current B hull) configuration as a T7 premium ship, with stats tweaked of course. That would lead to the (theoretically desireable) situation where the premium version of a ship is slightly inferior to the regular version.


"Friendly torpedos aren't."

Arguing with [stupid] people on the internet

Common projects with Trainspite:

Wichita proposal  Pensacola rework


Historynerd #7 Posted 20 May 2016 - 10:41 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Tester

  • 3,711
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postpiritskenyer, on 19 May 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

That is down to the quite hard shift in the tech tree between the Cleveland class and the Pensacola class. Pensacola was built more than a decade before Cleveland, and was designed and originally designated as a light cruiser with heavy armament. The Washington Naval Treat however made so that she was to be redesignated as a heavy cruiser.

 

Just a thing.

She was not designed as a light cruiser, but as a "treaty cruiser"; her "light cruiser" classification must have largely come to point to the difference between these ships and eventual battlecruisers, and also to emphasize their intended role as fleet scouts, the historical role of light cruisers. Her design does see influence from the preceding Omaha-class light cruisers, but all the navies had to build these cruisers from scratch, and largely relied on previous plans for light cruisers.

The light cruiser/heavy cruiser division came later, at the London Naval Treaty in 1930. Accordingly, she was reclassified as a heavy cruiser (from CL-24 to CA-24 hull classification).

 

However, her classification and her relative lack of protection (shared by pretty much all the other treaty cruisers of the first generation, anyway) did not make a light cruiser in capability as we may consider it, especially considering her firepower.

 

Sometimes, a characteristic (or its lack) can make for some interesting classifications.

For some time, the Italian Zara-class cruisers were classified as "incrociatori corazzati" (armoured cruisers), because of their high degree of protection; but they had little in common with what comes to mind when we say "armoured cruiser". :P


Edited by Historynerd, 20 May 2016 - 01:14 PM.

"We'll go and get ourselves killed for the King and for the country; but that does not give us victory, and win we must." - Carlo Pellion di Persano

FAN MADE ITALIAN TECH TREE!


VC381 #8 Posted 20 May 2016 - 10:59 AM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,813
  • Member since:
    02-03-2016

View Postpiritskenyer, on 20 May 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

 

The 1943 layout is the same that SLC had, but SLC did not recieve the 1945 refit. We established with Trainspite that SLC could fit in the 1943 (so current B hull) configuration as a T7 premium ship, with stats tweaked of course. That would lead to the (theoretically desireable) situation where the premium version of a ship is slightly inferior to the regular version.

 

Good point, but I think the release of Indianapolis kind of sinks the idea we might have another premium Tier 7 US heavy cruiser, especially one so similar.

 

It also confirms my point about the range, 16.9km and her mast is shorter than Pensacola's.



Allied_Winter #9 Posted 20 May 2016 - 11:15 AM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,094
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015

Great read! Thank you!

 

A Pensa refit would be great, if so to only reduce her detectability (Hull proposal look vaild!).

 

 

Greetings


Current main "grind": 1. Fiji (NEW), 2. Baltimore, 3. Mahan (NEW)


Trainspite #10 Posted 20 May 2016 - 03:34 PM

    Midshipman

  • Supertester
  • Beta Tester

  • 1,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

Just about other potential tier 7 USN Premium heavy cruisers, Salt Lake City, Houston & Portland are all candidates in my eyes. Alongside Indianapolis.

San Francisco, Wichita & 12 gun Pensacola Design are good for tier 8 as well.

 

And just some eye candy for a Pensacola C hull:

 

Spoiler

 



T_H_0_R #11 Posted 20 May 2016 - 03:51 PM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

Of all the photos of her last refit, Transpite chose the one where she is stripped down and on her way to shooting range. :)

 

Here are some more "Hull C" photos:

 

Spoiler

 



VC381 #12 Posted 20 May 2016 - 05:24 PM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,813
  • Member since:
    02-03-2016

Did he? Looks like a harbour shot to me and Indianapolis is next to her so it's still wartime.

 

As far as eye candy is concerned, I definitely don't dislike how these ships looked at the end of the war but for me they are at their best in their 1942 fits (that goes for all the US treaty cruiser classes).



piritskenyer #13 Posted 20 May 2016 - 05:25 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Supertester

  • 2,307
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostVC381, on 20 May 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

Did he? Looks like a harbour shot to me and Indianapolis is next to her so it's still wartime.

 

As far as eye candy is concerned, I definitely don't dislike how these ships looked at the end of the war but for me they are at their best in their 1942 fits (that goes for all the US treaty cruiser classes).

 

Talking about the second picture there. The first one is indeed featuring Indianapolis, but the main thing is Pensacola with all her modifications circled in white.

Edited by piritskenyer, 20 May 2016 - 05:26 PM.

"Friendly torpedos aren't."

Arguing with [stupid] people on the internet

Common projects with Trainspite:

Wichita proposal  Pensacola rework


T_H_0_R #14 Posted 21 May 2016 - 07:32 AM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015
Yup. Was referring to the second one. Even says so on the top of the pic. :)

VC381 #15 Posted 21 May 2016 - 08:40 AM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,813
  • Member since:
    02-03-2016

Yeah sorry the pic just didn't load for me so I didn't realise there were two. Also T_H_0_R whatever is in your spoiler I can't see, although I've been on Navsource enough to know what you're referring to :great:

 

On a slight tangent, the New Orleans could use a bit of love too, have the A hull as an actual early war fit rather than the weird mess we have that's basically an inaccurate 1944 hull with most of the AA stripped away or ahistorical.



piritskenyer #16 Posted 21 May 2016 - 09:20 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Supertester

  • 2,307
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostVC381, on 21 May 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yeah sorry the pic just didn't load for me so I didn't realise there were two. Also T_H_0_R whatever is in your spoiler I can't see, although I've been on Navsource enough to know what you're referring to :great:

 

On a slight tangent, the New Orleans could use a bit of love too, have the A hull as an actual early war fit rather than the weird mess we have that's basically an inaccurate 1944 hull with most of the AA stripped away or ahistorical.

 

I *may* look into it when I get NO, but it's not very high up on my to-do list right now.

"Friendly torpedos aren't."

Arguing with [stupid] people on the internet

Common projects with Trainspite:

Wichita proposal  Pensacola rework


S4h3L #17 Posted 21 May 2016 - 11:04 AM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,551
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013

View PostVC381, on 21 May 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

On a slight tangent, the New Orleans could use a bit of love too, have the A hull as an actual early war fit rather than the weird mess we have that's basically an inaccurate 1944 hull with most of the AA stripped away or ahistorical.

 

more AA for NOrleans, I second this
Spoiler

MatJan #18 Posted 21 May 2016 - 11:48 AM

    Leading Rate

  • Beta Tester

  • 125
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postpiritskenyer, on 19 May 2016 - 08:50 PM, said:

Hi gents, 

 

As many of you know, we have USS Pensacola as the current T7 US CA, and now that USS Indianapolis is coming up as a T7 prem CA, I thought it would be a good time to take a good hard look at her, so I called up Trainspite to help me out a bit. Much of the credit for all of this in here goes to him directly.

So, first things first: The Pensacola. Very very divisive ship in the community, with some people hating her to the core, and some people swearing by it. I'm not ging to lie, and most of you know this already, I'm in the second camp, although from time to time she infuriates me.

Now why is she so divisive?

That is down to the quite hard shift in the tech tree between the Cleveland class and the Pensacola class. Pensacola was built more than a decade before Cleveland, and was designed and originally designated as a light cruiser with heavy armament. The Washington Naval Treat however made so that she was to be redesignated as a heavy cruiser.

As light cruisers, Pensacola and Salt Lake City were relatively thinly armoured (4" max thickness on the main belt), but had very powerful machinery, with really high design speed for the time. They also got a hugely tall tripod mainmast, but more on that later.

How all of the above translates into game terms is probably all tooo familiar to most of you:

  • She is fast (not IJN-fast, but still a good turn of speed)
  • She has very good handling
  • She has no realy armour to speak of when it comes to handling accurate enemy fire from anything more powerfully armed than a T5 CL
  • And because of that tall tripod mainmast she can be seen fro the moon. No, really, she can be seen before she gets a chance to fire her guns.

 

Posted Image

 

Also, as it so happens, she has more than a few ahistoric features in game. We aim to rectify all of the above problems we can, based on her service history and refits. 

 

Posted Image

Here we see the superstructure of Myoko to the left, to the right we have Pensacola's 1945 refit superstructure and her 1942 configuration with the infamous mainmast

 

Posted Image

Pensacola compared to Myoko. Note how much taller Pensacola is as completed. (Picture credits to Trainspite)

 

So here is the suggestion in gross lines:

  • reworking her hull options:
    • A hull, as she was completed
    • B hull, 1942 refit 
    • C hull, 1945 refit
  • Changing the gun choices currently available, removing the ahistoric " 8"/50 Mk14 " guns (the US naval arsenals never had an 8"/50 calibre weapon)
    • as a side effect, changing the AP ammunition.

 

Hull reworks:

 

  • A hull

1929 hull, as built and comissioned.

  • Armament:
    • 10x 8"/55 (203mm) Mk9 guns in two twin and two triple turrets, firing the 8" Mk19 mod 1 AP projectile for a maximum damage of 4500.
    • 2x triple 533mm (21") torpedo tubes, firing Mk11 or 12 torpedoes
    • 4x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
  • AA:
    • 4x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
    • 4x .50cal (12,7mm) M2 HMG
  • Detection range: 15.7km

 

Now this hull features the guns she was originally fitted with, those would have the exact same characteristichs as the ahistorical L/50 weapons that we have now as stock.

This hull also features torpedoes, last in the regular tech tree. The torps were mounted in the after superstructure, and from what we could gather had very good arcs. These, however are the same torpedoes found on the Omaha, the Mk11. If we want to have stronger ones, we could give her the Mk 12's for higher damage (IRL the Mk 12 went slower and a wee further than the Mk11 but was otherwise the same).

You can see that she has nonexistent AA, she was completed in 1929 after all.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

  • B hull

1942 hull, basically a mix of what we now have as the base hull in game, but with the top guns. Her hull configuration from before the battle of Tassafaronga.

  • Armament:
    • 10x 8"/55 (203mm) Mk14 guns in two twin and two triple turrets, firing the 8" Mk19 mod 6 AP projectile for a maximum damage of 4600.
    • 8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
  • AA: 
    • ​8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
    • 4x quad 1.1"/75 (28mm) AA guns
    • 8x 20mm/70 Oerlikon guns
  • Detection range: 15km

 

What we see here is the state she was in in 1942. 

  • The top spotting room on the main mast is gone, replaced by a rangefinder, that knocks off an ever so slight part of visibility. 
  • Torpedoes now have been deleted as per decision of navy analysis determining them to be more of a risk than a potent weapon
  • The guns are the exact same as we already have in game.
  • AA has been augmented. Still not very good, but it's at least good enough for self defence.

 

Spoiler

 

  • C hull

1945 refit. Better than we have now in game.

  • Armament:
    • 10x 8"/55 (203mm) Mk14 guns in two twin and two triple turrets, firing the 8" Mk19 mod 6 AP projectile for a maximum damage of 4600.
    • 8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
  • AA:
    • ​8x 5"/25 (127mm) Mk12 DP guns
    • 7x quad 40mm/56 Bofors guns
    • 9x double 20mm/70 Oerlikon guns
  • Detection range: 13,5km

 

Here is her final refit from 1945. She had her incredibly tall mast cut down, had a platform and short tower installed. She is not as tall as battleships anymore. Her AA was substantially upgraded in 1943 to what we have in game now, and again in 1945 to what I have listed here.

Other changes:

  • Deletion of starboard catapult.
  • Both funnels are capped
Spoiler

 

Her other characteristics should remain unchanged, notably speed, healthpool, maneuverability, air detection range, all that jazz.

 

Sources:

http://www.navweaps.com/

http://www.navsource...4/024/04024.htm

http://www.shipbucket.com/

 

Nice one. I would add to move it to tier 6 (fits better with other ships introduction time to service more or less, than Cleveland that would be alternative at tier 8 with shell flight time buff) and as for tier 7? WG can put http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_northampton_class_cruisers.html  or http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_portland_class_cruisers.html Both classes of CAs(slight upgrades of Pensacola class with 9 203mm) lie between Pensacola and New Orleans. Ship design progression feels better that way(won't happen because WG is bringing USS Indianapolis a Portland class CA as premium :/)

Edited by MatJan, 21 May 2016 - 11:53 AM.

#MakeHipperGreatAgain
#Make/AP/GreatAgain

cro_pwr #19 Posted 21 May 2016 - 01:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players

  • 2,171
  • Member since:
    09-27-2015

Its like WG took all the worst parts of Pensacolas production / refitting and put it together in one ship which doesn't make any sense...

 



Trainspite #20 Posted 21 May 2016 - 02:37 PM

    Midshipman

  • Supertester
  • Beta Tester

  • 1,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMatJan, on 21 May 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

Nice one. I would add to move it to tier 6 (fits better with other ships introduction time to service more or less, than Cleveland that would be alternative at tier 8 with shell flight time buff) and as for tier 7? WG can put http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_northampton_class_cruisers.html  or http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_portland_class_cruisers.html Both classes of CAs(slight upgrades of Pensacola class with 9 203mm) lie between Pensacola and New Orleans. Ship design progression feels better that way(won't happen because WG is bringing USS Indianapolis a Portland class CA as premium :/)

 

Well, at tier 6 it would be devastatingly overpowered. Pensacola Preliminary design with 6, 7 or 8 8" guns is more comparable to Aoba (Aoba is mega buffed atm though) - The Pensacola preliminaries (picture coming when imgur decides to play along) offer a much better progression from Omaha to Pensacola. 

 

Cleveland is almost definitely a tier 8 Light Cruiser, her RoF (10RPM historically), AA & Citadel are all nerfed from what they should be. Her shell arc is the sticking point, but trying to cram a WW2 Light Cruiser into tier 6 against 1920s/30s Cruisers is not going to work.

 

A lot of people say Northampton is worse than Pensacola on account of her displacement (HP), and armour. I rate them equally, so Northampton should be a tier 7 very similar to Pensacola, leading a second USN Heavy cruiser line to tier 8

Portland seems unlikely to turn up at this point since Indianapolis is here, but in the future she could have a chance as a tier 7 premium.

 

(Will also post a picture of a re-worked USN Cruiser line if imgur works soon)







Also tagged with Pensacola, USS Pensacola

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users