ORIGINAL: mdiehl
My bad. Generally speaking when I see someone passionatelty devoted to an irrational position I assume ethnic nationalism is showing its face.
you are talking about yourself, right?
Models of Naval Combat
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: Models of Naval Combat
you are talking about yourself, right?
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Interesting. Yet, *other than yourself of course), most people regard Iowa as somewhat superior to Yamato, and SoDak as a weak contender for Yamato's equal.
Again, if you want anyone to believe you, you're going to have to offer some details. For example, you'd have to explain why you do not think that it matters that there is a very narrow range at which Bismarck can penetrate SoDak, while SoDak can hole Bismarck at a very large range. You'd have to explain why SoDak isn't superior, given SoDak's thicker deck armor, thicker barbette armor, thicker turret face armor, thicker top armor, thicker conning tower armor, and thicker intermagazine armor.
Details please, if you have any.
So far i gave you many details,i dont recall you gave me any.
Take a look posts before,i think i mentioned that.
Put aside Iowas and Yamato. That battle should be interesting.
P.S. I post a lot details,armor,gunnery etc.. ,and you try to beat them by "you are irrational". Is that your answer for facts,you must do better than that.
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Welcome Pauk,
Stand aside with fellow countrymen.[8D]
Stand aside with fellow countrymen.[8D]
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Interesting. Yet, *other than yourself of course), most people regard Iowa as somewhat superior to Yamato, and SoDak as a weak contender for Yamato's equal.
and my daddy is stronger than yours...
Wildcats were far superior than Zeros
Shermans were better than Tigers...
and yes, you are right again - Bismarck was totally inferiour to British ships. Unfortunatly, Hood was sunk by Rodney (mistake, ups).
And Britts did not sent the whole fleet to chase this poor b*stard....actually, i'm suprised that you dont know the FACT!
US pigboat (SS-007) torpedoed Bismarck with one torpedo but it fails to detonate. Doesnt matter, this undergunned, under-armored ship with poor gun crew sunk right after that torpedo hit Bismarck....
All hail to all-knowing mrdiehl!
RE: Models of Naval Combat
ORIGINAL: hawker
Welcome Pauk,
Stand aside with fellow countrymen.[8D]
well we Germans have to keep together[:D]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Oh, that's not really what Mdiel is saying.ORIGINAL: pauk
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Interesting. Yet, *other than yourself of course), most people regard Iowa as somewhat superior to Yamato, and SoDak as a weak contender for Yamato's equal.
and my daddy is stronger than yours...
Wildcats were far superior than Zeros
Shermans were better than Tigers...
and yes, you are right again - Bismarck was totally inferiour to British ships. Unfortunatly, Hood was sunk by Rodney (mistake, ups).
And Britts did not sent the whole fleet to chase this poor b*stard....actually, i'm suprised that you dont know the FACT!
US pigboat (SS-007) torpedoed Bismarck with one torpedo but it fails to detonate. Doesnt matter, this undergunned, under-armored ship with poor gun crew sunk right after that torpedo hit Bismarck....
All hail to all-knowing mrdiehl!
Wilcats superior to Zeros - depends on whos flying them..
Shermans better than Tigers - depends on how many and how far they have to go to fight (not to mention whos got gasoline available)
My Dad is stronger than your Dad...? hell I dunno![:D]
Pauk, care for some popcorn?
RE: Models of Naval Combat
From what little I've gleaned in Okun's study, it seems to me that the Bismark was developed for a very specific situation. Short range, low visibility, low angle gun fire (no plunging), and poor sea states. She was very well made for this situation, however the moment you place the Bismark in a long range (possible plunging fire) situation she soon starts to look weak.
I also didn't realise that her main armament had a maximum elevation of 30 degrees, thought that pretty much all WWII BBs had ~45 degree max elevation on them. Though considering that it was designed for close ranged combat it makes sense, why add the extra tonnage of gun equipment when it won't be used.
Can anyone tell me at what range PoW, Hood, and Bismark open fire at one another? I'm just wondering if the Bismark kept true to it's designed purpose or was drawn into a long range slug match.
Oh, and by all means continue the discussion.
I also didn't realise that her main armament had a maximum elevation of 30 degrees, thought that pretty much all WWII BBs had ~45 degree max elevation on them. Though considering that it was designed for close ranged combat it makes sense, why add the extra tonnage of gun equipment when it won't be used.
Can anyone tell me at what range PoW, Hood, and Bismark open fire at one another? I'm just wondering if the Bismark kept true to it's designed purpose or was drawn into a long range slug match.
Oh, and by all means continue the discussion.
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Few more FACTS:
Navy Memorandum Aug.1941
1.Atlantic is the most important, because here we can win the war in see.
2.While Tirpitz is existing, we are need 2 "KGV" to work together versus him.
4.To have 2 "KGV" at any time, we need 3 "KGV" in case of damage of 1 of them.
6.If Tirpitz appear in Atlantic, he can paralyzed our shipping in North Atlantic so much, so we need to compel him to fight. That's why we can't let to go even 1 "KGV" from this area.
Churchill response at next day.
3. ____ . _____ . He (Tirpitz) create general fear and danger in all points at once. He appear and disappear, provoke his opponents.
4.The fact that Navy needs 3 "KGV" versus Tirpitz, talking about quality of our newest battleships, ___ . It is see that Navy thing them (KGV) useless for fight one versus one. But even take this on mind I don't thing it is right to keep 3 KGV in Atlantic. I have mined a) US ships, which we can count now; b) the ability at Aircraft Carriers to reduce the speed of the ship, like Tirpitz, if he try to escape. ___ . Germans must take in mind the destiny of Bismarck. ____ .
FACTS IS FACTS.
[:D][:D][:D]
Navy Memorandum Aug.1941
1.Atlantic is the most important, because here we can win the war in see.
2.While Tirpitz is existing, we are need 2 "KGV" to work together versus him.
4.To have 2 "KGV" at any time, we need 3 "KGV" in case of damage of 1 of them.
6.If Tirpitz appear in Atlantic, he can paralyzed our shipping in North Atlantic so much, so we need to compel him to fight. That's why we can't let to go even 1 "KGV" from this area.
Churchill response at next day.
3. ____ . _____ . He (Tirpitz) create general fear and danger in all points at once. He appear and disappear, provoke his opponents.
4.The fact that Navy needs 3 "KGV" versus Tirpitz, talking about quality of our newest battleships, ___ . It is see that Navy thing them (KGV) useless for fight one versus one. But even take this on mind I don't thing it is right to keep 3 KGV in Atlantic. I have mined a) US ships, which we can count now; b) the ability at Aircraft Carriers to reduce the speed of the ship, like Tirpitz, if he try to escape. ___ . Germans must take in mind the destiny of Bismarck. ____ .
FACTS IS FACTS.
and my daddy is stronger than yours...
Wildcats were far superior than Zeros
Shermans were better than Tigers...
and yes, you are right again - Bismarck was totally inferiour to British ships. Unfortunatly, Hood was sunk by Rodney (mistake, ups).
And Britts did not sent the whole fleet to chase this poor b*stard....actually, i'm suprised that you dont know the FACT!
US pigboat (SS-007) torpedoed Bismarck with one torpedo but it fails to detonate. Doesnt matter, this undergunned, under-armored ship with poor gun crew sunk right after that torpedo hit Bismarck....
All hail to all-knowing mrdiehl!
[:D][:D][:D]
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
I've got something stronger if the popcorn isn't good enough...
RE: Models of Naval Combat
From what little I've gleaned in Okun's study, it seems to me that the Bismark was developed for a very specific situation. Short range, low visibility, low angle gun fire (no plunging), and poor sea states. She was very well made for this situation, however the moment you place the Bismark in a long range (possible plunging fire) situation she soon starts to look weak.
I also didn't realise that her main armament had a maximum elevation of 30 degrees, thought that pretty much all WWII BBs had ~45 degree max elevation on them. Though considering that it was designed for close ranged combat it makes sense, why add the extra tonnage of gun equipment when it won't be used.
Can anyone tell me at what range PoW, Hood, and Bismark open fire at one another? I'm just wondering if the Bismark kept true to it's designed purpose or was drawn into a long range slug match.
Oh,my god. Another one.READ THIS:
Eight 38 cm guns comprised Bismarck's main battery. The principal purpose of these guns was to destroy surface targets at sea, although they could also be used for shore bombardment and, exceptionally, against aircraft. Designed in 1934, the 38 cm SK C/34 were the most powerful guns ever mounted on a German warship. These were housed in four armoured twin turrets alphabetically arranged from forward to stern. Thus, turrets "Anton" and "Bruno" were located forward, while turrets "C�sar" and "Dora" were aft. Each turret weighed 1,056 metric tons, and was supported on a roller track platform. Below there were a series of levels that extended from the upper deck down to the bottom of the ship. The turrets were especially big compared with 38 cm twin turrets of other foreign warships, and the barrels were very separated from each other, therefore reducing interferences between them. Each gun barrel could fire and be elevated independently of the other. A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire. This was fully demonstrated in the morning of 24 May 1941 during the naval engagement with the British battlecruiser Hood.
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Shermans better than Tigers - depends on how many and how far they have to go to fight (not to mention whos got gasoline available)
You probably need five shermans against Tiger,or maybe someone (Mrdiehl)would say that you need five tigers against one sherman[:D]
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
ORIGINAL: hawker
A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire.
This pretty much validates what I said, low maximum angle of fire but high rate of fire. These guns were great for what they did but I do not believe that they were the overall 'best' ever built.
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
RE: Models of Naval Combat
And of course which model Sherman...that sad point here is that we HAD MORE than the 5 needed per Tiger...[:D][:D]ORIGINAL: hawker
Shermans better than Tigers - depends on how many and how far they have to go to fight (not to mention whos got gasoline available)
You probably need five shermans against Tiger,or maybe someone (Mrdiehl)would say that you need five tigers against one sherman[:D]
B
RE: Models of Naval Combat
This pretty much validates what I said, low maximum angle of fire but high rate of fire. These guns were great for what they did but I do not believe that they were the overall 'best' ever built.
I never said that these guns are best ever[;)].
Like Pauk says earlier:
1.Whole Brittish fleet hunt that piece of scrap
2.Hood was destroyer not BC
3.Torpedo from sub hit Bismarck but not exploded,still penetrated poor ship armor and exit at other side
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
ORIGINAL: Big B
Oh, that's not really what Mdiel is saying.
Wilcats superior to Zeros - depends on whos flying them..
Exactly. 35 years old pilot in Wildcat will do better than 5 year old Japanese in Zero!
ORIGINAL: Big B
Shermans better than Tigers - depends on how many and how far they have to go to fight (not to mention whos got gasoline available)
yup. 10 shermans against one Tiger and Tiger would probably lost.... like 10 hyenaa will beat one leopard
ORIGINAL: Big B
My Dad is stronger than your Dad...? hell I dunno![:D]
i don't know for sure too... it was sarcasm.
[:D]
ORIGINAL: Big B
Pauk, care for some popcorn?
No thanks, i have to keep my weight
[:D]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
ORIGINAL: Big B
And of course which model Sherman...that sad point here is that we HAD MORE than the 5 needed per Tiger...[:D][:D]
B
Don't forget the TDs. Can I have some popcorn?[:)]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
And of course which model Sherman...that sad point here is that we HAD MORE than the 5 needed per Tiger...
You are "irrelevant"[:D][:D]
Everyone knows that Sherman is better than Tiger. Sherman is even better than IS-3.[:D][:D][:D]
Fortess fortuna iuvat
RE: Models of Naval Combat
Deepsix....please here -
[:D][:D]
[:D][:D]
RE: Models of Naval Combat
ORIGINAL: hawker
You are "irrelevant"[:[/b]D][:D]
No..Irrelevant is Irrelevant...he posts here you know...[:D][:D][:D]