User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:30:52 PM EDT
[#1]
I've already proven ya wrong, Larry. A person of average intelligence, with the reading comprehension skills of a turnip could see that. Not going to argue with someone so vehemently obtuse.
eta: Your original statement was: And the Graf Spee ran the first time it saw British warships ...which is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:33:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a one-on-one fight, speed and maneuverability can make a big difference. The only battleship-on-battleship encounter involving pre-war US BBs was the Battle of Surigao Strait, which isn't a very good example because the Japanese 1) were outnumbered 3 to 1 by the US ships, and 2) they basically did a Samurai charge at the US battle line. Not surprisingly, they got creamed. I'd have a hard time betting against the Bismarck if it encountered a Colorado class ship in May of 1941. Most of the older US BBs did not have advanced fire control systems installed before Pearl Harbor; that was a wartime upgrade. Take away the superior fire control and the Bismarck would have the edge. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iowa wins it over all the others. Furthermore, I believe a Colorado Class would have also done well against the Bismark. Maybe...if the Bismarck had cut her engines and was dead in the water. The Colorado class were built for slugging it out with other BBs, but their top speed was only about 22 knots, significantly slower than the Bismarck. The Germans would have either run away or ran circles around her. Partly true. Speed does not matter in a battleship fight. At least not at this degree. You either fight, or you run away. The British, German, and Japanese battleships were akin to Karate fighters. They went into battle under the delusion that they would not be hit at all. The US battleships were like boxers. It was understood from the beginning the they would be hit, and they were designed to get hit, and keep fighting. Any US battleship from the Colorado class forward, would have easily sunk the Bismark, and any US battleship from the Nevada class forward, would have probably sunk the Bismark. In a one-on-one fight, speed and maneuverability can make a big difference. The only battleship-on-battleship encounter involving pre-war US BBs was the Battle of Surigao Strait, which isn't a very good example because the Japanese 1) were outnumbered 3 to 1 by the US ships, and 2) they basically did a Samurai charge at the US battle line. Not surprisingly, they got creamed. I'd have a hard time betting against the Bismarck if it encountered a Colorado class ship in May of 1941. Most of the older US BBs did not have advanced fire control systems installed before Pearl Harbor; that was a wartime upgrade. Take away the superior fire control and the Bismarck would have the edge. The problem is, we were not at war in May of 1941. By the time we got in the fight, the Colorado would have shot the Tirpitz to hell, but she didn't have to, because we had North Carolinas and South Dakotas lined up to do the job. In any event, the US philosophy of gradual improvement of BB design, from the North Dakota , forward, gave us some very solid ships that could take a hit. Do you know that an early US dreadnought (Florida or Delaware class) suffered a magazine explosion and not only did not sink, but had less than 50 fatalities and was soon back in operation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:38:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Iowa class used the Mk 38 FCS, with the Mk. 8 Rangekeeper running the main batteries. A somewhat different design than the Mk1/1A.
Shells would be in the air before Bismark even spotted the Missouri. A night battle would be disastrous for the Germans.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:39:15 PM EDT
[#4]
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:42:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is, we were not at war in May of 1941. By the time we got in the fight, the Colorado would have shot the Tirpitz to hell, but she didn't have too, because we had North Carolinas and South Dakotas lined up to do the job. In any event, the US philosophy of gradual improvement of BB design, from the South Dakota I , forward, gave us some very solid ships that could take a hit. Do you know that an early US dreadnought (Florida or Delaware class) suffered a magazine explosion and not only did not sink, but had less than 50 fatalities and was soon back in operation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Partly true. Speed does not matter in a battleship fight. At least not at this degree. You either fight, or you run away. The British, German, and Japanese battleships were akin to Karate fighters. They went into battle under the delusion that they would not be hit at all. The US battleships were like boxers. It was understood from the beginning the they would be hit, and they were designed to get hit, and keep fighting. Any US battleship from the Colorado class forward, would have easily sunk the Bismark, and any US battleship from the Nevada class forward, would have probably sunk the Bismark. In a one-on-one fight, speed and maneuverability can make a big difference. The only battleship-on-battleship encounter involving pre-war US BBs was the Battle of Surigao Strait, which isn't a very good example because the Japanese 1) were outnumbered 3 to 1 by the US ships, and 2) they basically did a Samurai charge at the US battle line. Not surprisingly, they got creamed. I'd have a hard time betting against the Bismarck if it encountered a Colorado class ship in May of 1941. Most of the older US BBs did not have advanced fire control systems installed before Pearl Harbor; that was a wartime upgrade. Take away the superior fire control and the Bismarck would have the edge. The problem is, we were not at war in May of 1941. By the time we got in the fight, the Colorado would have shot the Tirpitz to hell, but she didn't have too, because we had North Carolinas and South Dakotas lined up to do the job. In any event, the US philosophy of gradual improvement of BB design, from the South Dakota I , forward, gave us some very solid ships that could take a hit. Do you know that an early US dreadnought (Florida or Delaware class) suffered a magazine explosion and not only did not sink, but had less than 50 fatalities and was soon back in operation? When the pre-war ships were built the US philosophy was to build ships that had similar characteristics in order to avoid embarrassing differences in speed and size and armament. And yes, they were built to take a pounding -- but by the start of WWII the old Jutland battle strategy of lining up and shooting each other to hell was obsolete. The main problem with the Colorado and Nevada other pre-war dreadnoughts was that they couldn't keep up with the fast carrier forces and were thus relegated to supporting amphibious landings in World War II (at which they excelled, BTW). While they were formidable weapons after modernization, they were basically dinosaurs as soon as the Japanese planes flew off their carriers on December 7th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:45:28 PM EDT
[#6]
The real winner.
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:45:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Graf Spee, the U-boats, etc were deployed as commerce raiders. They sank a lot of Allied shipping, but other than the Hood, I can't recall any of them actually doing a lot of damage to the Royal Navy itself. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Bismarck and Tirpitz along with the u boats almost brought down the The Royal Navy. The other two ships mentioned in this thread didn't nearly do as much damage to any other fleet. Actually, the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Graf Spee, the U-boats, etc were deployed as commerce raiders. They sank a lot of Allied shipping, but other than the Hood, I can't recall any of them actually doing a lot of damage to the Royal Navy itself. As far as the Yamato class, while the Iowa's would have been able to stand up to them, particularly with the superiority of the 16/50" battery and superior fire control, as well as the speed advantage, it was the Montana class that was planned as the answer to the Yamato's. The class was delayed to prioritize Essex class CV's, and ended up cancelled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:48:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real winner.
<a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/h6t5.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/790/h6t5.jpg</a> /thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 7:58:03 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? Nice try.
Would have had no effect other than range at speed. Fuel was a consideration for the BBs but it wasn't something that hobbled them. \ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:02:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would think it would take at least D batteries to run a ship that big, actually....  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A little off topic, but one of the things that plagued ALL Japanese ships were their AA batteries. I would think it would take at least D batteries to run a ship that big, actually.... Thank you, you made my night, ROTFLMAO |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:07:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've already proven ya wrong, Larry. A person of average intelligence, with the reading comprehension skills of a turnip could see that. Not going to argue with someone so vehemently obtuse. eta: Your original statement was: ...which is incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've already proven ya wrong, Larry. A person of average intelligence, with the reading comprehension skills of a turnip could see that. Not going to argue with someone so vehemently obtuse. eta: Your original statement was: And the Graf Spee ran the first time it saw British warships ...which is incorrect. At 05:52, however, the ship was identified as HMS Exeter; she was accompanied by a pair of smaller warships, initially thought to be destroyers but quickly identified as Leander class cruisers. Langsdorff decided not to flee from the British ships, and so ordered his ship to battle stations and to close at maximum speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:11:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
EMPs have to be the most excessively masturbated-to non-problem, ever. It is perfectly possible to shield modern computers against EMI and any reasonably likely EMP effect. But I will agree, those computers are impressive... Last I knew, there was one on display on the USS Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still no link. The thread is about BBs, not DDs. Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. Really impressive analog computing technology. SMART people built that! I don't know if we have anybody left who would have the knowhow to build equally good analog computer mechanisms today, or even someone who would know how to design such a thing. It might be a lost art. But then again, it IS EMP-proof so perhaps it's not completely useless tech. EMPs have to be the most excessively masturbated-to non-problem, ever. It is perfectly possible to shield modern computers against EMI and any reasonably likely EMP effect. But I will agree, those computers are impressive... Last I knew, there was one on display on the USS Texas. I toured her in '11 the fire control room was pretty large with giant massive computer, plotting charts etc. it's amazing how archaic it is today but it actually worked pretty well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:14:59 PM EDT
[#13]
And that takes care of that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:35:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Well we strayed a little from the original three ships so I will ask this other than the Yamato class, how would the Alaska class battle cruisers have done against any remaining Japanese battleship?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:41:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well we strayed a little from the original three ships so I will ask this other than the Yamato class, how would the Alaska class battle cruisers have done against any remaining Japanese battleship? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 8:49:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without digging out my book on WW II battleships, didn't the Yamato have 18-inch guns? Weren't as good due to lower muzzle velocity/inferior shells. Iowas had radar fire control while the Japanese just had optics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 9:09:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ding btw the Japs had some pretty damn good capabilities with targeting & fire control, they kicked our asses in Iron Bottom Sound Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. btw the Japs had some pretty damn good capabilities with targeting & fire control, they kicked our asses in Iron Bottom Sound For torpedoes in 42-43 yes, but not for long range gunnery on up to date ships anything past 42. Yamato's fire control would not have allowed her accurate fire until she was well inside a Iowa class BBs range, Yamato would have been shot to pieces before she got to a range where she could shoot with any accuracy and that assuming the US commander would let her close to that range which he probably would not have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 10:59:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well we strayed a little from the original three ships so I will ask this other than the Yamato class, how would the Alaska class battle cruisers have done against any remaining Japanese battleship? They could probably out shoot them since their armament and control was modern. But their best action would have been to out run them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 11:07:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bismarck and Tirpitz along with the u boats almost brought down the The Royal Navy. The other two ships mentioned in this thread didn't nearly do as much damage to any other fleet. Not even remotely accurate. Bismarck and Tirpitz between them accounted for exactly one twenty-year old Royal Navy battle-cruiser. That would still leave the Royal Navy with sixteen other battleships and two battlecruisers, along with eleven aircraft carriers. The U-boats did better, sinking two battleships that dated to the First World War, and three aircraft carriers. That still left the Royal Navy with a commanding superiority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 11:10:38 PM EDT
[#20]
I still thnk we should have built at least one of the Montana class boats
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 11:38:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Iowa class BBs are the best battledhips ever assembled. And that aint no bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 11:58:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iowa class for sure. Its armor was proof against ALL other guns. Yes, even against the 18" guns of the Yamato. But, the Mk VII 16" 50 caliber guns of the Iowa class were also equally able to defeat even the heaviest armor on the Yamato or Bismarck. The Yamato front turret armor was 26" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. No other armor could withstand the Iowa class big guns. No other guns could defeat the Iowa class armor. Iowa class wins, hands down, not even close. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:00:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still thnk we should have built at least one of the Montana class boats http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Montana_Class.png They would have been useless overkill in the war effort, but it sure would have been nice to jam one of those into Tokyo harbor right after the armistice was signed, as a giant FUCK YOU to Tojo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:21:07 AM EDT
[#24]
RE: speed, the Italians had some phenomenally fast cruisers and other heavy ships, which did them dick-all good against superior British seamanship and gunnery.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:28:41 AM EDT
[#25]
In before the spelling Nazis.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:39:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, the Mk VII 16" 50 caliber guns of the Iowa class were also equally able to defeat even the heaviest armor on the Yamato or Bismarck. The Yamato front turret armor was 26" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. I'd take the Iowas to be sure, but to be fair to the Yamato, that post-war armor test wasn't quite true-to-life, if I read the reports correctly. It sounds like the plate was basically standing straight up when they shot it or slightly off vertical, while on the actual turret face it would have been angled at 45 degrees, increasing its efficiency at least somewhat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:03:24 AM EDT
[#27]
When is one talking about the Missouri? As it was at the end of WWII or as it is in modern times? If the latter, then the comparison is really off balance.
One of the interesting things that I've come across in a reading of history is the Prinz Eugen at Crossroads. That internally, many Americans found the ship an item of envy, one that they would have liked to serve aboard (I don't have that book in front of me, doing it from memory). Assuming that the Bismarck was of similar construction, then the low marks others give for the quality of the ship may be undeserved. After all, in the Prinz's case, one does have a ship that survived two atomic blasts and took 4 months to sink (I am assuming that there were no DC crews aboard to repair damage). There may be more to this comparison than just the size of one's gun. ________________________________________________________________________________ ("....It could be the latest Subaru Impreza STI. Over the years, its had more face lifts than Joan Rivers......,"--Vicki, (w,stte), "Fifth Gear") |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:20:53 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryWasn't the USS Wasp sunk? EDIT never mind there was 2 USS Wasp aircraft carriers during the war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:25:04 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't the USS Wasp sunk? Quote HistoryQuoted:
USS Wasp CV-7 was sunk by a Japanese submarine. The name was transferred to an Essex Class ship which became USS Wasp CV-18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:36:12 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading about the Montana class, I'm not really sure what the point was. Thankfully, the plans were scrapped before we spent any time or money on them. The Iowas were already better than any other BB in existence. It's my understanding to address perceived weaknesses in the underwater integrity if the Iowa class. Namely against torps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:58:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Murderers Row Ulithi 1944 The reason why both Yamato and Mushashi are at the bottom of the Pacific 
Here is HMS Ark Royal and her already outdated Fairley Swordfish Biplanes, why Bismark is at the bottom of the Atlantic Do the math, they were all outdated. The BB's sole purpose by 1942 was for Fleet Air Defense and Naval Bombardment. After Jutland, it was over for large direct clashes of Capital Ships |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 2:05:15 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..........After Jutland, it was over for large direct clashes of Capital Ships Errrrr, not quite. Maybe in gun to gun action but........................ ........................if this thing ever fired in anger 
that claim would rather be in error. Further, if one doesn't have air power in the area (and as we know, they will do anything to ensure the carrier never gets hit), then it does come back to other means to fight the battle. _____________________________________________________________________ ("Your one bullet against my six?"--007 "I only need on bullet."--Scaramanga, (w,stte), "The Man With The Golden Gun") |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 4:25:35 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd take the Iowas to be sure, but to be fair to the Yamato, that post-war armor test wasn't quite true-to-life, if I read the reports correctly. It sounds like the plate was basically standing straight up when they shot it or slightly off vertical, while on the actual turret face it would have been angled at 45 degrees, increasing its efficiency at least somewhat. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: But, the Mk VII 16" 50 caliber guns of the Iowa class were also equally able to defeat even the heaviest armor on the Yamato or Bismarck. The Yamato front turret armor was 26" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. I'd take the Iowas to be sure, but to be fair to the Yamato, that post-war armor test wasn't quite true-to-life, if I read the reports correctly. It sounds like the plate was basically standing straight up when they shot it or slightly off vertical, while on the actual turret face it would have been angled at 45 degrees, increasing its efficiency at least somewhat. That was covered in the testing. Even if the shell had bounced off the turret face, the armor would have spalled catastrophically on its back side, killing everyone in the turret and wrecking equipment. A non-penetrating hit on the turret armor would have been a kill, too. Turret out of action, turret crews pulped and shredded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 4:54:11 AM EDT
[#34]
I don't claim any great expertise but through my reading of many histories of WWII I am struck by what seems to be luck in many battles.
Early in the war before good radar in most ships a passing storm could absolutely change everything up. A fairly small hit that happened to find the bridge could wipe out critical manpower and pretty much take a major ship out of the battle WWII had a crazy amount of technical advance in fire control (radar and computers) For the most part of the war sea battles were all about who happened to find the other guy mostly by pure dumb luck. Our ability to read jap codes gave us a huge leg up in many cases . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 5:31:35 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't claim any great expertise but through my reading of many histories of WWII I am struck by what seems to be luck in many battles. It would seem so, but luck had little to do with it. Our Navy had excellent intelligence on the capabilities of the Japanese and German warships, best trained crews, and an unsurpassed fire control and targeting system. We could accurately target and fire beyond visual range and can target and fire while under maneuvers. The Germans and Japanese could not effectively do that. Of the three, the Iowa would have engaged and sunk both, the Yamamoto and the Bismark, before those could see the Iowa and return effective fire power. This is why the Japanese preferred to clash with the US Navy in gulf waters where maneuvering is more restricted and land mass interfered with radar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:28:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was covered in the testing. Even if the shell had bounced off the turret face, the armor would have spalled catastrophically on its back side, killing everyone in the turret and wrecking equipment. A non-penetrating hit on the turret armor would have been a kill, too. Turret out of action, turret crews pulped and shredded. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But, the Mk VII 16" 50 caliber guns of the Iowa class were also equally able to defeat even the heaviest armor on the Yamato or Bismarck. The Yamato front turret armor was 26" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. I'd take the Iowas to be sure, but to be fair to the Yamato, that post-war armor test wasn't quite true-to-life, if I read the reports correctly. It sounds like the plate was basically standing straight up when they shot it or slightly off vertical, while on the actual turret face it would have been angled at 45 degrees, increasing its efficiency at least somewhat. That was covered in the testing. Even if the shell had bounced off the turret face, the armor would have spalled catastrophically on its back side, killing everyone in the turret and wrecking equipment. A non-penetrating hit on the turret armor would have been a kill, too. Turret out of action, turret crews pulped and shredded. Ah. I couldn't find the original report, and what I could find made no mention of that. That makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:41:18 PM EDT
[#37]
"Neptune's Inferno" by James D Hornfisher is an excellent book about the naval battles of the Soloman Islands in early to mid WWII. And Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors buy the same covers some of the last battle ship on battle ship shooting. And its a damn fine book also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:51:31 PM EDT
[#38]
the age of the BB's may be over but some seem to forget what happens in protracted wars.. as a naval war went on, like the the land war in afghnistan and iraq, the ships would inevitably get more guns and more armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:52:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. Cruisers, even tenders, had the same fire control system. No relevance in a thread about BBs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still no link. The thread is about BBs, not DDs. Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. Not really. Cruisers, even tenders, had the same fire control system. No relevance in a thread about BBs. Yes really. The accuracy of the guns, their ability to get on target fast, was due in large part to their superior fire control computers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:52:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iowa class wins /thread. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:53:16 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/title.jpg Obviously the Yamato, because it flies through space and shit.  http://youtu.be/c_8Tf9vRXkU?t=24mThe discussion about the superiority of various navies' battleships is fascinating, but for this, I am in your debt. Thank you! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:54:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Partly true. Speed does not matter in a battleship fight. At least not at this degree. You either fight, or you run away. The British, German, and Japanese battleships were akin to Karate fighters. They went into battle under the delusion that they would not be hit at all. The US battleships were like boxers. It was understood from the beginning the they would be hit, and they were designed to get hit, and keep fighting. Any US battleship from the Colorado class forward, would have easily sunk the Bismark, and any US battleship from the Nevada class forward, would have probably sunk the Bismark. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iowa wins it over all the others. Furthermore, I believe a Colorado Class would have also done well against the Bismark. Maybe...if the Bismarck had cut her engines and was dead in the water. The Colorado class were built for slugging it out with other BBs, but their top speed was only about 22 knots, significantly slower than the Bismarck. The Germans would have either run away or ran circles around her. Partly true. Speed does not matter in a battleship fight. At least not at this degree. You either fight, or you run away. The British, German, and Japanese battleships were akin to Karate fighters. They went into battle under the delusion that they would not be hit at all. The US battleships were like boxers. It was understood from the beginning the they would be hit, and they were designed to get hit, and keep fighting. Any US battleship from the Colorado class forward, would have easily sunk the Bismark, and any US battleship from the Nevada class forward, would have probably sunk the Bismark. US BB underwater protection was compromised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:55:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/title.jpg Obviously the Yamato, because it flies through space and shit. One of the stupidest ideas ever for a show that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Yes I'm no fun. A winnebago for a spaceship makes sense in the context of a comedy/parody movie like Spaceballs. A ship sunk decades ago meant for riding on the waves of the ocean raised up and refurbished for use in space and being the centerpiece of a sci-fi series? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 12:56:02 PM EDT
[#44]
You spelled 'Bismark' wrong, OP. How can anyone take your post serious? Geesh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:04:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real winner.
<a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/h6t5.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/790/h6t5.jpg</a> I was waiting for someone to post this. LOL winnar |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:06:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real winner.
<a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/h6t5.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/790/h6t5.jpg</a> This. Essex and her sisters are the reason the US Navy is the inheritor of the Royal Navy as ruler of the seas. By the time all three of these battleships were launched they were out-of-date. As for Bismarck vs. the Royal Navy: the reason Jutland didn't happen until 1916 (and no major fleet engagements between the RN and the Kriegsmarine during WWII) is because the Germans knew they couldn't match the competence of the British sailor. The British sailor was better trained, had higher morale, and a tradition of victory. The Germans didn't. They did everything they could to avoid direct conflict with the RN, instead working to contain the British fleet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:09:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Forget it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:17:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RE: speed, the Italians had some phenomenally fast cruisers and other heavy ships, which did them dick-all good against superior slow obsolete British biplanes seamanship and gunnery. Fixt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:22:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fixt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
RE: speed, the Italians had some phenomenally fast cruisers and other heavy ships, which did them dick-all good against superior slow obsolete British biplanes seamanship and gunnery. Fixt. Italian ship speed is vastly overrated. The speeds quoted were trial speeds, generally without armanent, ammunition or full stores, and with the machiniery run up to 15% over the limtis. Their service speeds were no better than anyone else. What the Italian Navy lacked was any kind of electronic equipment, fuel, and decent leadership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 1:29:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real winner.
<a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/h6t5.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/790/h6t5.jpg</a> Only because of white privilege.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
