Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Peasant

How Not to Post in the Historical Warfare Section

Recommended Posts

On 10/18/2015 at 5:08 PM, Donward said:

I... I'm not sure. Considering that every single piece of equipment produced by the United States was better than anything produced by the Germans or the Japanese.

 

Ummm... Colt M1911A1?

> A6M Zero

> Yamato

 

Oh.

 

Zeroes main issues in combat had a lot more to do with situation, pilot training, flying culture of IJN air arm, and technological issues. In reality, the Zero could fight toe to toe with an F6F.

 

Technological is radio issue, leading to difficulty co-ordinating battles.

It might not help the Japanese used a lot of hand signals in dogfights, so when the Americans increased the battle area by going faster and higher, they ran into serious issues.

Stuff like splitting up Japanese fighter groups was much easier than it's American counterpart.

Also being handicapped by weak engine tech.

 

 

Yamato best BB ever built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Toxn said:

This is low quality trolling.

You wanna have a fight BB to BB Yamato wins everytime.

 

You want a BB to take hits, Yamato wins every time so long as it has nothing to do with torpedoes.

 

You want a BB to survive, Yamato wins hands down.

 

Sure the AA tech is inferior to Iowa, but the design itself has the necessary characteristics to be best BB.

 

 

Iowa overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

"Yamato best BB as long as it doesn't meet enemies"

"Yamato best BB as long as engagement happens 1v1 on a flat plane and radar is banned"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peasant said:

You wanna have a fight BB to BB Yamato wins everytime.

 

You want a BB to take hits, Yamato wins every time so long as it has nothing to do with torpedoes.

 

You want a BB to survive, Yamato wins hands down.

 

Sure the AA tech is inferior to Iowa, but the design itself has the necessary characteristics to be best BB.

 

 

Iowa overrated.

 

WEEABOO'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

WEEABOO'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS!

I'm personally convinced Combined Fleet is talking out of his ass, and the information seen in the technical archives paint a very bleak picture for any WW2 era BB that intends to duel with the Yamato.

 

Things like, Iowa can pierce Yamato citadel max distance 23km/40?, versus Yamato pierce Iowa citadel max distance 30km/38km. Yamato has more technically accurate guns with sufficient fire control to handle BVR

 

This being the reasoning used by WG's technical assistants to place Yamato above Iowa in tiers.

 

 

Though they fail to represent Yamato's scouting complement.

Indeed it is in fact likely the Yamato will find the Iowa first, simply because of this spotting advantage.

 

Yamato's gunnery record in her only major engagement is actually quite good. First volley tight straddle pattern on a jeep carrier at over 30 km? Repeatedly?

I do not mean Iowa "straddling" so loosely that it's subject target was only aware it was straddled twice.

 

While Yamato's TDS is quite poor at preventing torpedo damage it works fairly well as reserve buoyancy. This being a product of Japanese engine technology of the era forcing increased beam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Peasant said:

I'm personally convinced Combined Fleet is talking out of his ass, and the information seen in the technical archives paint a very bleak picture for any WW2 era BB that intends to duel with the Yamato.

 

Waifutrager/DiagonalSushi, is that you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Waifutrager/DiagonalSushi, is that you?

His information is out of date. Things like the decapping formula and hand waving away Yamato's technical accuracy and sufficient ability to generate fire control solutions. He disregards that Yamato can actually handle BVR if you include all on board systems (spotter aircraft), instead of comparing specific solutions.

Relative lack of understanding of Yamato's armor and simply hand waving it. He even over evaluates Yamato's TDS, because if you look at the facts it really does a terrible job against torpedoes. It's not particularly the joint as much as the entire design is conductive towards reserve buoyancy instead of actual protection.

I don't think he's realized that Iowa doesn't have a sufficiently hard, or thick plate to decap Yamato's shells.

He has cherry picked his information.

You can even see it in his armor evaluation where he tries to analyze Yamato's armor but gives it a stat modifier based on... Jack shit actually.

And IIRC, he subscribes to the myth that a battleship can simply wheel about at 30 km "dodging" enemy gun fire, because the radar FCS is suddenly able to increase technical accuracy.

 

I'm not sure who you mean by the other people though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peasant said:

His information is out of date. Things like the decapping formula and hand waving away Yamato's technical accuracy and sufficient ability to generate solutions, ignoring that Yamato can actually handle BVR if you include all on board systems, instead of comparing specific solutions.

Relative lack of understanding of Yamato's armor and simply hand waving it. He even over evaluates Yamato's TDS, because if you look at the facts it really does a terrible job against torpedoes. It's not particularly the joint as much as the entire design is conductive towards reserve buoyancy instead of actual protection.

I don't think he's realized that Iowa doesn't have a sufficiently hard, or thick plate to decap Yamato's shells.

He has cherry picked his information.

You can even see it in his armor evaluation where he tries to analyze Yamato's armor but gives it a stat modifier based on... Jack shit actually.

And IIRC, he subscribes to the myth that a battleship can simply wheel about at 30 km "dodging" enemy gun fire, because the radar FCS is suddenly able to increase technical accuracy.

 

Well, the Iowa's a museum, and the Yamato's at the bottom of the East China Sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Well, the Iowa's a museum, and the Yamato's at the bottom of the East China Sea.

And Iowa never fought a major battle against anything other than a third world country/overwhelmingly favorable odds. Nor did the Iowa get involved with a suicide mission where the US sent an entire fleet armed with precisely what it's designers sacrificed protection against (many torpedo bombers) to achieve best anti BB performance.

Poor argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Peasant said:

And Iowa never fought a major battle against anything other than a third world country. Nor did the Iowa get involved with a suicide mission where the US sent an entire fleet armed with precisely what it's designers sacrificed protection against (many torpedo bombers) to achieve best anti BB performance.

Poor argument.

 

The Yamato only ever fired a shot in anger once, so shows what you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The Yamato only ever fired a shot in anger once, so shows what you know.

It actually fired around 100 shells to a degree of effect in 1 battle.

So it's not *a* shot, no.

Though it did achieve shooting down friendly aircraft...

And even then, Yamato managed to score hits far beyond what it's Western counterparts had achieved.

It's suicide mission presented no targets for which the main cannons could effectively engage.

 

You are changing the target. You said Iowa was still floating? That has nothing to do with the design of the ship. That outcome is already decided.*

Now you are claiming BS.

 

*: Even if Japan surrenders without suiciding Yamato, Yamato is given to America, and then almost certainly nuked at crossroads if Nagato is anything to go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Peasant said:

It actually fired around 100 shells to a degree of effect in 1 battle.

So it's not *a* shot, no.

Though it did achieve shooting down friendly aircraft...

And even then, Yamato managed to score hits far beyond what it's Western counterparts had achieved.

It's suicide mission presented no targets for which the main cannons could effectively engage.

 

You are changing the target. You said Iowa was still floating? That has nothing to do with the design of the ship. That outcome is already decided.*

Now you are claiming BS.

 

*: Even if Japan surrenders without suiciding Yamato, Yamato is given to America, and then almost certainly nuked at crossroads if Nagato is anything to go by.

 

You've done a lot of claiming and zero proving. I'm just playing with my food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Peasant said:

And Iowa never fought a major battle against anything other than a third world country/overwhelmingly favorable odds. Nor did the Iowa get involved with a suicide mission where the US sent an entire fleet armed with precisely what it's designers sacrificed protection against (many torpedo bombers) to achieve best anti BB performance.

Poor argument.

"If only they'd fought the battle of Jutland again like we designed for".

 

Poor argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Peasant okay, I know I've been poking you in the eye here. But I think the following is important for even-handed discussion of a given design's strengths and weaknesses.

 

First, you have to identity the problem that the design was supposed to solve. IE: did it succeed on it's own terms? It's important to ask this question on all levels: the tactical, operational and strategic.

 

Then you need to consider the real situation that the design found itself in. Again, it's important to consider whether the design could cope with the real world on all levels.

 

Only then, once you've put everything into context, can you start talking about something so nebulous as which design is 'the best'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The zero crap is almost as bad as his bb fantasy lol. 

 

Leave some scraps I can't do a real responce from my phone.

It really isn't a bad aircraft.

29 minutes ago, Toxn said:

"If only they'd fought the battle of Jutland again like we designed for".

 

Poor argument.

For the role it was designed to do, namely, beat battleships, being the precise criteria I just laid out, it was very good.

Yamato being a product of the IJN's doctrine, should be appreciated as such.

12 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Zero

 

No self sealing fuel tanks, goes up in flames with a burst of .50 cal. Hauled to the Naval yard by a water buffalo team.

 

Lol.

 

At least he's living up to the user name.

 

The Zeroes lack of self sealing tanks in early models is rectified later. That was later changed.

The reality is self sealing tanks are bad for range. And when padding the distance in particular, the Zero did that.

 

The main thing that kept the design back, was the Navy's refusal of a more powerful engine. Mitsubishi experimented to that end on it's own accord in 1945.

 

"A burst"? You'd have to actually hit the fuel tanks to ignite the fuel tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

@Peasant okay, I know I've been poking you in the eye here. But I think the following is important for even-handed discussion of a given design's strengths and weaknesses.

 

First, you have to identity the problem that the design was supposed to solve. IE: did it succeed on it's own terms? It's important to ask this question on all levels: the tactical, operational and strategic.

 

Then you need to consider the real situation that the design found itself in. Again, it's important to consider whether the design could cope with the real world on all levels.

 

Only then, once you've put everything into context, can you start talking about something so nebulous as which design is 'the best'.

I didn't even talk about best. The idea I raised was that when dueling battleship to battleship Yamato will (probably) win.

 

Somehow this became a matter of the best by whatever criterion that was demanded.

I didn't realize a winner of a battleship duel suddenly became the best multirole warship. *sarcasm*

 

I don't intend to argue too much, but the facts in archives ring true.

My greatest issue ATM is not being able to read the archive anymore.

 

Your own site has the Fischer archive listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Peasant said:

I didn't even talk about best. The idea I raised was that when dueling battleship to battleship Yamato will (probably) win.

 

Somehow this became a matter of the best by whatever criterion that was demanded.

I didn't realize a winner of a battleship duel suddenly became the best multirole warship. *sarcasm*

 

I don't intend to argue too much, but the facts in archives ring true.

My greatest issue ATM is not being able to read the archive anymore.

 

Your own site has the Fischer archive listed.

Well sure, by that incredibly narrow definition Yamato will probably win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peasant said:

> A6M Zero

> Yamato

 

Oh.

 

Zeroes main issues in combat had a lot more to do with situation, pilot training, flying culture of IJN air arm, and technological issues. In reality, the Zero could fight toe to toe with an F6F.

 

Technological is radio issue, leading to difficulty co-ordinating battles.

It might not help the Japanese used a lot of hand signals in dogfights, so when the Americans increased the battle area by going faster and higher, they ran into serious issues.

Stuff like splitting up Japanese fighter groups was much easier than it's American counterpart.

Also being handicapped by weak engine tech.

 

 

Yamato best BB ever built.

This contradicts what you just said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

This contradicts what you just said.

I... Actually said that... I didn't see it. 

 

I meant battleship battleship duelist. But if you are going to compare battleship design to battleship design Yamato is definitely better than Iowa in raw power.

 

Iowa's main winning counts come in forms like anti aircraft FCS.

 

Iowa's just a bigger less efficient version of it's predecessor as a design.

 

 

So if I am to argue that point as it is said. (My bad hard to do on phone) Then I will say. If you wanted maximum efficiency you would never have built the Iowa class in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×