User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:10:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any US Fast Battleship would have handled the Bismark easily, and the Yamato slightly less easily. The Iowa's were the best of them, but from a Fire-Control standpoint... It's not close. We'd be getting hits in numbers and at ranges neither the Japanese nor the Germans could even dream of. Yamato at least has the advantage that her shells would hurt more than ours would. Bismark doesn't even have that. (If Tirpitz would have come out while Washington was operating with the UK's fleet in '42, it would have saved the Brits a -lot- of trouble) Not true. The Mark VIIs/50 cals on the Iowa could actually punch harder then the Yamato's 18" guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:11:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In every case of a surface action involving those units, RN victory was only achieved by use of overwhelming numbers. There may be a lesson here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:15:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true. The Mark VIIs/50 cals on the Iowa could actually punch harder then the Yamato's 18" guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any US Fast Battleship would have handled the Bismark easily, and the Yamato slightly less easily. The Iowa's were the best of them, but from a Fire-Control standpoint... It's not close. We'd be getting hits in numbers and at ranges neither the Japanese nor the Germans could even dream of. Yamato at least has the advantage that her shells would hurt more than ours would. Bismark doesn't even have that. (If Tirpitz would have come out while Washington was operating with the UK's fleet in '42, it would have saved the Brits a -lot- of trouble) Not true. The Mark VIIs/50 cals on the Iowa could actually punch harder then the Yamato's 18" guns. yep, higher velocity and better designed shells. I think that point is getting missed here, it's not just the guns, it's also the shells that dictate the effectiveness of the weapon system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:21:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There may be a lesson here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In every case of a surface action involving those units, RN victory was only achieved by use of overwhelming numbers. There may be a lesson here. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:34:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> Still, with the last test, even though the round didn't fully penetrate, it still holed the armor. Now imagine what would have happened if it had an explosive charge too. Spalling would have most likely occurred making the turret an very unpleasant place to be. And that was the thickest part of the Yamato-class' armor! I read an analysis somewhere to the effect that the Yamato class armor wasn't very good metallurgically. I think it said in essence that it was WW I grade even though it was very thick (Krupp cemented? not sure). In any case, the turret face was thicker than any other armor on the ship so it seems pretty clear that the Yamatos weren't proof against 16" AP from an Iowa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:35:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That isn't really true... The Yamato had various radars, including several for gunnery use. She also had a fire control computer which could work off the radar. That said, both her radar, and the fire control computer were vastly inferior to ours, and would have had great difficulty making hits at distances that were, comparatively, easy for us. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Without digging out my book on WW II battleships, didn't the Yamato have 18-inch guns? Doesn't do you much good to have big guns when your radar and fire control are outclassed. No radar on the Japanese ship. Missouri probably could have taken both on at the same time and STILL won. Axis ship's first clue that we were anywhere around would be when 16"AP rounds started dropping on them form high arc trajectories. The chance of them getting an accurate shot off with optical systems at a ship that was BVR is negligible. Nick That isn't really true... The Yamato had various radars, including several for gunnery use. She also had a fire control computer which could work off the radar. That said, both her radar, and the fire control computer were vastly inferior to ours, and would have had great difficulty making hits at distances that were, comparatively, easy for us. I did not know that. Thanks for the schooling!  Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:45:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only. I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 6:55:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only. I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. that would have been pretty cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 7:51:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that would have been pretty cool. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only. I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. that would have been pretty cool. We would have been better off completing the rest of Iowa's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 8:01:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. On a nuke powered vessel, at-sea endurance is limited by human tolerance of being cooped up on board the stinking boat, food supplies (always available via unrep), and consumables needed by other ship's systems. Lubricating oils being a prime concern, but also suitable for unrep. (That's Underway Replenishment) If you had a crew that never got cabin fever and wanted to stay on the boat indefinitely, there's no reason that a nuclear powered vessel would have to return to port at all until it needed nuclear refueling or something broke that could not be repaired at sea. Or, underway replenishment of particularly heavy consumables wasn't possible. I have no idea if the 16" shells could be replenished underway. Something tells me that it was probably something that would only be attempted under calm seas and with the supply ship moored to the recipient, and transferred by crane. Certainly you wouldn't be replacing gun barrels at sea.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yffII9kdOwI
Holy shit! Moving two 16" projectiles with a pallet jack on a rolling deck is not my idea of safe. Sounds like a great way to get maimed or killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 9:09:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We would have been better off completing the rest of Iowa's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only. I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. that would have been pretty cool. We would have been better off completing the rest of Iowa's. Get BOTH! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2013 10:00:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get BOTH! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really wish we had completed the Montanas. that would have been pretty cool. We would have been better off completing the rest of Iowa's. Get BOTH! I'll admit that twelve 16" guns and a twenty 54 caliber 5" guns makes the Montana really stand out for fire support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 4:13:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll admit that twelve 16" guns and a twenty 54 caliber 5" guns makes the Montana really stand out for fire support. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really wish we had completed the Montanas. that would have been pretty cool. We would have been better off completing the rest of Iowa's. Get BOTH! I'll admit that twelve 16" guns and a twenty 54 caliber 5" guns makes the Montana really stand out for fire support. We'd all drool over the Montana BBs if they'd been built, but honestly, the Iowa (sorry, my brain farts quite often...four letter state name with I and O in it...how close could it be?  ) class was more than sufficient for any Navalengagement in history so the Montanas would have been extreme overkill. A superweapon with nobody to use it on.  In truth, the Iowas never actually got into the battleship-to-battleship slugfest that they built for. I believe only one of them actually traded rounds with a Japanese boat and it was FAR from the pitched battle that an Iowa was built to withstand. The BBs saw plenty of action but very little of it was in their primary intended role, sinking other capital ships. Was it worth it? Did the investment in manpower and materiel that the BBs represent actually justify the results in terms of how much they contributed to wartime victory? I can't answer that question. I do know that I'm glad four BBs were built and all four of them survived and all four of them are open for tours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 5:24:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We'd all drool over the Montana BBs if they'd been built, but honestly, the Ohio Iowa class was more than sufficient for any Naval engagement in history so the Montanas would have been extreme overkill. A superweapon with nobody to use it on.
In truth, the Iowas never actually got into the battleship-to-battleship slugfest that they built for. I believe only one of them actually traded rounds with a Japanese boat and it was FAR from the pitched battle that an Iowa was built to withstand. The BBs saw plenty of action but very little of it was in their primary intended role, sinking other capital ships. Was it worth it? Did the investment in manpower and materiel that the BBs represent actually justify the results in terms of how much they contributed to wartime victory? I can't answer that question. I do know that I'm glad four BBs were built and all four of them survived and all four of them are open for tours.
If we hadn't been so lucky in the aviation department, we very well could have needed them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 6:41:22 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disclaimer: I'm going off of memory here, so I might be off a bit. It wasn't to guarantee penetration, it was to guarantee a hit. That way they didn't need to put the armor plate 20 miles out on the Potomac River and fire all day trying to hit a relatively small section of armor plate. The actual pieces of armor they were shooting were rather small. This was so they could test different velocities/angles. So what they did was place the armor plate close to the gun and then use reduced charges to simulate the velocity the projectiles would have at long range. The normal muzzle velocity of the 16"/50 was about 2400 to 2500 feet per second. The tests in that link had an impact velocity of 2,000 and 1,700 feet per second. That last velocity probably equates to about 18 nautical miles of range. Now look at the angle of impact "oblique angle." You can see it was less than 1 degree. That's to represent an armor plate set at 45 degrees and an AP shell descending at about the same angle. Those velocities and angles weren't chosen by accident. They Navy was testing what they believed to be representative of ranges and trajectories likely to be found in combat. Now pay attention to the projectile used. They used AP rounds that were Blind, Loaded, and Plugged (BL&P). AP rounds had explosive charges. The test rounds did not. They were loaded with some sort of inert material, probably sand, that simulated the weight and density of the explosive filler without the benefits of an explosive. Still, with the last test, even though the round didn't fully penetrate, it still holed the armor. Now imagine what would have happened if it had an explosive charge too. Spalling would have most likely occurred making the turret an very unpleasant place to be. And that was the thickest part of the Yamato-class' armor! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
WRONG . Read the article. The US Navy deliberately did those tests at point blank range and 0 degree inclination so they would be guaranteed penetration ( a failure test using deformation and penetration to measure strength ) 
The author concludes that with the usual oblique impact angles and the 45 degree mounting of the plates, a US 16" gunned ship would not have penetrated at any range. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm Disclaimer: I'm going off of memory here, so I might be off a bit. It wasn't to guarantee penetration, it was to guarantee a hit. That way they didn't need to put the armor plate 20 miles out on the Potomac River and fire all day trying to hit a relatively small section of armor plate. The actual pieces of armor they were shooting were rather small. This was so they could test different velocities/angles. So what they did was place the armor plate close to the gun and then use reduced charges to simulate the velocity the projectiles would have at long range. The normal muzzle velocity of the 16"/50 was about 2400 to 2500 feet per second. The tests in that link had an impact velocity of 2,000 and 1,700 feet per second. That last velocity probably equates to about 18 nautical miles of range. Now look at the angle of impact "oblique angle." You can see it was less than 1 degree. That's to represent an armor plate set at 45 degrees and an AP shell descending at about the same angle. Those velocities and angles weren't chosen by accident. They Navy was testing what they believed to be representative of ranges and trajectories likely to be found in combat. Now pay attention to the projectile used. They used AP rounds that were Blind, Loaded, and Plugged (BL&P). AP rounds had explosive charges. The test rounds did not. They were loaded with some sort of inert material, probably sand, that simulated the weight and density of the explosive filler without the benefits of an explosive. Still, with the last test, even though the round didn't fully penetrate, it still holed the armor. Now imagine what would have happened if it had an explosive charge too. Spalling would have most likely occurred making the turret an very unpleasant place to be. And that was the thickest part of the Yamato-class' armor! Sleeping on this and re-reading the article plus other stuff, I agree with you that the quoted author is wrong and at somewhere under 18 miles the Yamato would have started to get holed. USN didn't pull that 1700 FPS test velocity out of a hat when max was 2,500 FPS Overall, in a daytime engagement, the Yamato would have needed to get lucky to win and the Iowa just needed to have a good day to win. But, I still think it would have been a closer run slug fest than many Iowa fans here would like to admit. Night time, the Yamato probably would have been sunk without scoring a single hit on it's attacker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 7:11:27 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sleeping on this and re-reading the article plus other stuff, I agree with you that the quoted author is wrong and at somewhere under 18 miles the Yamato would have started to get holed. USN didn't pull that 1700 FPS test velocity out of a hat when max was 2,500 FPS Overall, in a daytime engagement, the Yamato would have needed to get lucky to win and the Iowa just needed to have a good day to win. But, I still think it would have been a closer run slug fest than many Iowa fans here would like to admit. Night time, the Yamato probably would have been sunk without scoring a single hit on it's attacker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WRONG . Read the article. The US Navy deliberately did those tests at point blank range and 0 degree inclination so they would be guaranteed penetration ( a failure test using deformation and penetration to measure strength )
The author concludes that with the usual oblique impact angles and the 45 degree mounting of the plates, a US 16" gunned ship would not have penetrated at any range. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm Disclaimer: I'm going off of memory here, so I might be off a bit. It wasn't to guarantee penetration, it was to guarantee a hit. That way they didn't need to put the armor plate 20 miles out on the Potomac River and fire all day trying to hit a relatively small section of armor plate. The actual pieces of armor they were shooting were rather small. This was so they could test different velocities/angles. So what they did was place the armor plate close to the gun and then use reduced charges to simulate the velocity the projectiles would have at long range. The normal muzzle velocity of the 16"/50 was about 2400 to 2500 feet per second. The tests in that link had an impact velocity of 2,000 and 1,700 feet per second. That last velocity probably equates to about 18 nautical miles of range. Now look at the angle of impact "oblique angle." You can see it was less than 1 degree. That's to represent an armor plate set at 45 degrees and an AP shell descending at about the same angle. Those velocities and angles weren't chosen by accident. They Navy was testing what they believed to be representative of ranges and trajectories likely to be found in combat. Now pay attention to the projectile used. They used AP rounds that were Blind, Loaded, and Plugged (BL&P). AP rounds had explosive charges. The test rounds did not. They were loaded with some sort of inert material, probably sand, that simulated the weight and density of the explosive filler without the benefits of an explosive. Still, with the last test, even though the round didn't fully penetrate, it still holed the armor. Now imagine what would have happened if it had an explosive charge too. Spalling would have most likely occurred making the turret an very unpleasant place to be. And that was the thickest part of the Yamato-class' armor! Sleeping on this and re-reading the article plus other stuff, I agree with you that the quoted author is wrong and at somewhere under 18 miles the Yamato would have started to get holed. USN didn't pull that 1700 FPS test velocity out of a hat when max was 2,500 FPS Overall, in a daytime engagement, the Yamato would have needed to get lucky to win and the Iowa just needed to have a good day to win. But, I still think it would have been a closer run slug fest than many Iowa fans here would like to admit. Night time, the Yamato probably would have been sunk without scoring a single hit on it's attacker. Don't forget daytime weather conditions. The Yamato is basically totally fucked in anything but ideal daylight conditions... Even in perfect conditions, her chances are poor, and basically depend on some kind of failure on the part of the Iowa. I might be the first to point out the Yamato had radar, including gunnery radar and some respectable fire control systems... But it just doesn't cut it. Without visual on target, she'd be lobbing shells into the Iowa's zip code... The Iowa will be dropping shells through her mailbox. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 7:12:35 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Was one or the other really just over-gunned? Which one had the most firepower? Which was biggest? Which one hosted the signing of a surrender? /thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 7:12:55 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Which one had the most firepower? The Enterprise? Carrier >>>>>>> Battleship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 7:28:09 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yamato, Battleship. Displacement: 73k tons. 18 inch primaries. 27 knots. http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/japan/yamato/images/001-battleship-yamato.jpg Missouri, Battleship (Iowa class). Displacement: 57k tons. 16 inch primaries. 31 knots. http://www.hawaiiforvisitors.com/images/oahu/attractions/uss-missouri-02-usnavy-400x302.jpg Bismark, Battleship (AKA Pocket Battleship). Displacement: 50k tons. 15 inch primaries. 30 knots. http://www.warcovers.dk/greenland/bismarck_pic.jpg Bismarck was not a pocket battleship. Perhaps you are thinking of the Deutschland class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 7:38:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sleeping on this and re-reading the article plus other stuff, I agree with you that the quoted author is wrong and at somewhere under 18 miles the Yamato would have started to get holed. USN didn't pull that 1700 FPS test velocity out of a hat when max was 2,500 FPS Overall, in a daytime engagement, the Yamato would have needed to get lucky to win and the Iowa just needed to have a good day to win. But, I still think it would have been a closer run slug fest than many Iowa fans here would like to admit. Night time, the Yamato probably would have been sunk without scoring a single hit on it's attacker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WRONG . Read the article. The US Navy deliberately did those tests at point blank range and 0 degree inclination so they would be guaranteed penetration ( a failure test using deformation and penetration to measure strength )
The author concludes that with the usual oblique impact angles and the 45 degree mounting of the plates, a US 16" gunned ship would not have penetrated at any range. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm Disclaimer: I'm going off of memory here, so I might be off a bit. It wasn't to guarantee penetration, it was to guarantee a hit. That way they didn't need to put the armor plate 20 miles out on the Potomac River and fire all day trying to hit a relatively small section of armor plate. The actual pieces of armor they were shooting were rather small. This was so they could test different velocities/angles. So what they did was place the armor plate close to the gun and then use reduced charges to simulate the velocity the projectiles would have at long range. The normal muzzle velocity of the 16"/50 was about 2400 to 2500 feet per second. The tests in that link had an impact velocity of 2,000 and 1,700 feet per second. That last velocity probably equates to about 18 nautical miles of range. Now look at the angle of impact "oblique angle." You can see it was less than 1 degree. That's to represent an armor plate set at 45 degrees and an AP shell descending at about the same angle. Those velocities and angles weren't chosen by accident. They Navy was testing what they believed to be representative of ranges and trajectories likely to be found in combat. Now pay attention to the projectile used. They used AP rounds that were Blind, Loaded, and Plugged (BL&P). AP rounds had explosive charges. The test rounds did not. They were loaded with some sort of inert material, probably sand, that simulated the weight and density of the explosive filler without the benefits of an explosive. Still, with the last test, even though the round didn't fully penetrate, it still holed the armor. Now imagine what would have happened if it had an explosive charge too. Spalling would have most likely occurred making the turret an very unpleasant place to be. And that was the thickest part of the Yamato-class' armor! Sleeping on this and re-reading the article plus other stuff, I agree with you that the quoted author is wrong and at somewhere under 18 miles the Yamato would have started to get holed. USN didn't pull that 1700 FPS test velocity out of a hat when max was 2,500 FPS Overall, in a daytime engagement, the Yamato would have needed to get lucky to win and the Iowa just needed to have a good day to win. But, I still think it would have been a closer run slug fest than many Iowa fans here would like to admit. Night time, the Yamato probably would have been sunk without scoring a single hit on it's attacker. You have to remember that with the Iowas superior speed, she had the capability to dictate the time and range of the engagement, ensuring a night engagement I'd they wished and not withstanding any tactical/operational considerations that may have required a less optimal engagement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 8:09:47 AM EDT
[#21]
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 Agree completely. AND the Iowa class was faster than the other two so it could pull away from the other two at will if it ever got into trouble. Keep in mind that the Bismarck was designed as a LARGE commerace raider. it was not designed to fight against other battleships. That's why it RAN from the Hood and the other ships that were looking for it. The Bismarck only fought when they had no other choice. The Yamato seems top have been designed by "the bigger is better" philosophy! A ruinous decision by a country with as few resources as WW II Japan! They worked on it for years and never had the resources to complete it. But in a face to face confrontation, there's no guarantee who would win. Battles are frequently lost by the first one to make a mistake and not necessarily by the weaker opponent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 8:20:32 AM EDT
[#22]
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. That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 8:29:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! 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. That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! They were actually more useful as a fleet in being. The threat of the Bismark and Scharnhorst class ships forced the Allies to deploy valuable capital ships, including battleships and aircraft carriers as convoy escorts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 8:38:33 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! 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. That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! It also could have been Prinz Eugen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 8:39:26 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were actually more useful as a fleet in being. The threat of the Bismark and Scharnhorst class ships forced the Allies to deploy valuable capital ships, including battleships and aircraft carriers as convoy escorts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! They were actually more useful as a fleet in being. The threat of the Bismark and Scharnhorst class ships forced the Allies to deploy valuable capital ships, including battleships and aircraft carriers as convoy escorts. Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 8:57:32 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:05:06 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. wat?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:12:18 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: wat? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. wat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:14:22 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:22:28 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! 1: The Iowa's were upgraded with CIWS for just this reason (well, that and aircraft threats). 2: The Sheffield didn't immediately sink... She sank after considerable time. A larger ship wouldn't have lost so many critical systems to a single hit, and would have better damage control/fire suppression as a result. 3: I'd be really surprised if a single sea-skimming cruise missile could sink an Iowa class fully crewed, ready for battle and with acceptable damage control training. Not saying it isn't possible, and for sure enough hits could sink her... But one? Not so sure I think that's realistic. They are big, tough sonsofbitches. 4: I would think we operated Iowa's with a screening force... Could be wrong though. And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Wat? 
Nukes aren't widely available... And good luck targeting a ship with one. Warships, especially battleships, are actually pretty nuke resistant... Going to need a good hit to get a kill... Can't just lob it in the general vicinity. Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars.
Lobbing PGMs is expensive. Lobbing melted down Volkswagen at your enemy with an overly glorified catapult... That is cost effective. That said, obviously Battleships are obsolete for their intended role, and damned expensive to operate as a shore bombardment only asset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:23:28 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, what about the big, expensive carrier I was on for 6 years? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. It was a clever illusion. You were really on an OHP, but via skillfull use of mirrors and such you thought you were on a carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:27:32 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Yamato front turret armor was 24" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. CJ I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/pages/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.htm http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/images/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.jpg Fascinating. Thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:35:09 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryFrom that article: Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:42:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:the bismarck, by US standards fell somewhere between a battleship and a heavy cruiser. No. Bismark class was larger than all U.S. battleships except the Iowas and the never-built Montanas. It was a true battleship - albeit a poorly engineered one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:47:24 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only. I'm actually a little doubtful about the ability of the Alaska class to go head to head with something like Fuso or Kongo. They seem a little on the lightweight side for me in terms of guns and armor... I really wish we had completed the Montanas. The 12" on the Alaska class were excellent guns, and regarded as being equivalent to WWI-era 14" in performance. Plus she had real good fire control, as well. They are light on armor - they would have to engage and get disabling hits before they came under crushing return fire. However, neither the Kongos or Fuso had well armored ecks - they were designed in the same era as HMS Hood, and had the same flaws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:51:20 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! 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. That's just completely false! The Bismarck and Tirpritz brought down almost nothing! They spent their entire time afloat hiding from the Allies and RARELY even put to sea! When the Bismarck did put to see it spent the entire cruise running from the allies! They fought the Hood when corned and managed to get in a one in a million shot that blew the Hood sky high, then they went on the run again. Both ships consumed far more material and labor than they were worth! The U-boats OTOH were a completely different story! They did severe damage to Allied shipping but that's a completely different discussion from what's being asked here. Germany had smaller commerace raiders that were FAR more effective than the Bismarck and Tirpritz and that costs far less to build and used far smaller crews and use far less resources. The Bismarck and Tirpritz were designed to be big and impressive looking to display national honor but as war ships they were a disaster! Biz and Tirp tied up massive Allied air and naval assets that otherwise would have been escorting shipping being victimized by pocket battlehsips, Q ships, U boats, etc. They functioned as a "fleet in being". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 9:52:58 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if we put nuke reactors in the Iowa's? BIG and expensive ships are too vulnerable to cruise missiles and other modern weapons. The US clearly learned that lesson from the British in the Falklands. That's why they finally decided to retire the New Jersey. It would have been a PR disaster if a ship like the NJ had been taken out by a single shot from a cheap weapon like a cruise missile! And with nukes now widely available it would been a sure target for terrorist groups or a rogue nation! Besides with modern precision guided weapons and high wield warheads it doesn't take a BIG ship with lots of heavy guns to destroy a target! I'm sure that you'll seen plenty to the one-shot one-kill results on bridges, buildings, aircraft and other targets in the last couple of wars. I'm pretty sure we run around a bunch of LARGER ships, chock-full of aviation fuel and ordnance. What will a cruise missile do to them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 11:34:35 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They functioned as a "fleet in being". A "fleet in being" doesn't sink a single ship! The entire goal of the Axis during the battle of the Atlantic was to stop allied supply ships from reaching England and Russia. They didn't succede! They tied up additional resources and perhaps prolonged the inevitable, that's all. The ships and AC that were used to hunt for the Bismarck and Tirpritz could have been used to guard convoys or they could go out and look for the hunters which they did. It's six-to-one of half-dozen-to-the-other as to which was more effective. But the fact of the matter is that the Allies had enough ships and AC to do both so Bismarck and Tirprit had no discernible effect on the outcome of the war! The Bismarck and Tirpritz and similar ships used up enormous German resources and there were German weapons that were much more effective. If Germany had put those resources into more fighters, or their jet fighters, or the V1 and V2 or into more Panzer tanks or just into more submarines then the outcome of the war may have been far different! I think that in terms of the war overall, the Bismarck and Tirpritz counted for nothing but an interesting footnote! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 11:35:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "fleet in being" doesn't sink a single ship! The entire goal of the Axis during the battle of the Atlantic was to stop allied supply ships from reaching England and Russia. They didn't succede! They tied up additional resources and perhaps prolonged the inevitable, that's all. The ships and AC that were used to hunt for the Bismarck and Tirpritz could have been used to guard convoys or they could go out and look for the hunters which they did. It's six-to-one of half-dozen-to-the-other as to which was more effective. But the fact of the matter is that the Allies had enough ships and AC to do both so Bismarck and Tirprit had no discernible effect on the outcome of the war! The Bismarck and Tirpritz and similar ships used up enormous German resources and there were German weapons that were much more effective. If Germany had put those resources into more fighters, or their jet fighters, or the V1 and V2 or into more Panzer tanks or just into more submarines then the outcome of the war may have been far different! I think that in terms of the war overall, the Bismarck and Tirpritz counted for nothing but an interesting footnote! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They functioned as a "fleet in being". A "fleet in being" doesn't sink a single ship! The entire goal of the Axis during the battle of the Atlantic was to stop allied supply ships from reaching England and Russia. They didn't succede! They tied up additional resources and perhaps prolonged the inevitable, that's all. The ships and AC that were used to hunt for the Bismarck and Tirpritz could have been used to guard convoys or they could go out and look for the hunters which they did. It's six-to-one of half-dozen-to-the-other as to which was more effective. But the fact of the matter is that the Allies had enough ships and AC to do both so Bismarck and Tirprit had no discernible effect on the outcome of the war! The Bismarck and Tirpritz and similar ships used up enormous German resources and there were German weapons that were much more effective. If Germany had put those resources into more fighters, or their jet fighters, or the V1 and V2 or into more Panzer tanks or just into more submarines then the outcome of the war may have been far different! I think that in terms of the war overall, the Bismarck and Tirpritz counted for nothing but an interesting footnote!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 11:56:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Battle of the Bismark is a really cool story..... It took a lot to sink that ship........I wonder if the Missouri could take that kind of pounding and stay afloat as long??? GOOD post! Was it not ONE hit, that put SD out of action??? H |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 12:00:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GOOD post! Was it not ONE hit, that put SD out of action??? H Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Battle of the Bismark is a really cool story..... It took a lot to sink that ship........I wonder if the Missouri could take that kind of pounding and stay afloat as long??? GOOD post! Was it not ONE hit, that put SD out of action??? H That night, an error in engine room switchboards left South Dakota powerless: without her radars, she no longer had a grasp on the complicated tactical situation.[6] South Dakota, under fire from at least three ships, took 42 hits, causing considerable damage.[7] Her radio communications failed, radar plot was demolished, three fire control radars were damaged, there was a fire in her foremast, and she had lost track of Washington. As she was no longer receiving enemy fire and there were no remaining targets, she withdrew, met Washington at a prearranged rendezvous, and proceeded to Nouméa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 12:42:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "fleet in being" doesn't sink a single ship! The entire goal of the Axis during the battle of the Atlantic was to stop allied supply ships from reaching England and Russia. They didn't succede! They tied up additional resources and perhaps prolonged the inevitable, that's all. The ships and AC that were used to hunt for the Bismarck and Tirpritz could have been used to guard convoys or they could go out and look for the hunters which they did. It's six-to-one of half-dozen-to-the-other as to which was more effective. But the fact of the matter is that the Allies had enough ships and AC to do both so Bismarck and Tirprit had no discernible effect on the outcome of the war! The Bismarck and Tirpritz and similar ships used up enormous German resources and there were German weapons that were much more effective. If Germany had put those resources into more fighters, or their jet fighters, or the V1 and V2 or into more Panzer tanks or just into more submarines then the outcome of the war may have been far different! I think that in terms of the war overall, the Bismarck and Tirpritz counted for nothing but an interesting footnote! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They functioned as a "fleet in being". A "fleet in being" doesn't sink a single ship! The entire goal of the Axis during the battle of the Atlantic was to stop allied supply ships from reaching England and Russia. They didn't succede! They tied up additional resources and perhaps prolonged the inevitable, that's all. The ships and AC that were used to hunt for the Bismarck and Tirpritz could have been used to guard convoys or they could go out and look for the hunters which they did. It's six-to-one of half-dozen-to-the-other as to which was more effective. But the fact of the matter is that the Allies had enough ships and AC to do both so Bismarck and Tirprit had no discernible effect on the outcome of the war! The Bismarck and Tirpritz and similar ships used up enormous German resources and there were German weapons that were much more effective. If Germany had put those resources into more fighters, or their jet fighters, or the V1 and V2 or into more Panzer tanks or just into more submarines then the outcome of the war may have been far different! I think that in terms of the war overall, the Bismarck and Tirpritz counted for nothing but an interesting footnote! You cannot just change one paramater - they all have effects on each other. For example., the U-boats and suirface raiders were more effective because air and naval assets were tied up in case the German heavy units tried to break out into the Atlantic or bounce a Murmansk convoy. Perhaps one of the Navy warriors reading this can comment on "fleet in being" influence at the strategic and operational level? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 12:55:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except Hood was a leftover obsolete early WW1 design, with a major design flaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. This. See HMS Hood for details. Yep, and since Bismark sank her with only 3 salvos, Bismark had some pretty damn good fire control, especially considering it was her very first action. Still, I think Iowa could knock Bismark's dick in the dirt sea. Except Hood was a leftover obsolete early WW1 design, with a major design flaw. True, but so was the plane that caused the Bismark to go down. One lucky shot. That's all it ever takes. How hard it is to GET that lucky shot varies, and our battle wagons did a good job of making it a tall order. They weren't invulnerable though. Nothing is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 1:00:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to remember that with the Iowas superior speed, she had the capability to dictate the time and range of the engagement, ensuring a night engagement I'd they wished and not withstanding any tactical/operational considerations that may have required a less optimal engagement. You are assuming - like many others there - an open Ocean, fair Weather, Radar picks up Enemy at max distance scenario. This CANNOT be guaranteed! Close Range, Surprise encounter, ( around Savo Island or thinking Radar Contact is a Transport ) - and all bets are off! And, IMHO, the Iowa´s were often criticised for their weak Armor, often called "Battlecruisers". Only in ARFCom GD they got supernatural Powers! Hermann |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 1:05:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep in mind that the Bismarck was designed as a LARGE commerace raider. it was not designed to fight against other battleships. That's why it RAN from the Hood and the other ships that were looking for it. The Bismarck only fought when they had no other choice. The Yamato seems top have been designed by "the bigger is better" philosophy! A ruinous decision by a country with as few resources as WW II Japan! They worked on it for years and never had the resources to complete it. But in a face to face confrontation, there's no guarantee who would win. Battles are frequently lost by the first one to make a mistake and not necessarily by the weaker opponent. BS on first claim, and on second one, too! Bismarck´s Captain ( Admiral ) had the ORDER to Break Through, and avoid fight, if possible. BS # 2: Japan KNEW it had inferior resources. Therefore EACH class, and EACH ship was designed to be Top Dog in the respective class. This was to reduce necessary numbers, so to preserve resources! Agree on last conclusion, though: There´s NO Substitute for Alertness and pure, dumb LUCK! Hermann |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 4:01:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And, IMHO, the Iowa´s were often criticised for their weak Armor, often called "Battlecruisers". Cite, please? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 4:19:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy shit! Moving two 16" projectiles with a pallet jack on a rolling deck is not my idea of safe. Sounds like a great way to get maimed or killed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy shit! Moving two 16" projectiles with a pallet jack on a rolling deck is not my idea of safe. Sounds like a great way to get maimed or killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 4:51:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now we can't be having people getting maimed or killed on a WARSHIP now, can we?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit! Moving two 16" projectiles with a pallet jack on a rolling deck is not my idea of safe. Sounds like a great way to get maimed or killed.
Getting your own people hurt is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 5:08:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite, please? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And, IMHO, the Iowa´s were often criticised for their weak Armor, often called "Battlecruisers". Cite, please? I've read criticisms of its underwater protection. My understanding is that is largely a byproduct of needing to fit in the Panama Canal. The other criticism I've read is that its armor isn't proof against its own guns. Considering there wasn't armor afloat proof against the 16/50, I'd say that's a poor argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2013 5:11:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Getting your own people hurt is stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Holy shit! Moving two 16" projectiles with a pallet jack on a rolling deck is not my idea of safe. Sounds like a great way to get maimed or killed. Getting your own people hurt is stupid. Still, I don't think a pallet jack is particularly unsafe. Not in sea conditions as shown in that video. If you run into problems with a pallet jack, you just squeeze the handle, it drops, and motion stops. Anyone who's qualified to run a pallet jack loaded with 2 16" HE shells on it should be OK. |
|
|
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.
