Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Peasant

How Not to Post in the Historical Warfare Section

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Peasant said:

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

Ah yes, it's much better to plunge in the ocean than to get home.

 

Are you perchance British? Because that's British thinking. The Brits were looking for a good self sealing fuel tank during World War 1, but after the war added the requirement of it being crash proof as well. So all designs submitted were not only tested for self sealing capabilities, but were also dropped from a tower. And due to basic physics existing all of them burst on impact and as a result were discarded for failing the requirements.

And thus goes the story of how the United Kingdom went to war without self sealing fuel tanks.

 

Yes, people died because of that stupidity.

Share this post


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

Isn't the Zero basically the Japanese equivalent of Nascar? Only capable of making left turns.

No.

 

It is a 1941 plane that was maneuverable but was slow to roll because of span, aspect ratio, and somewhat questionable weight reduction choices.

In the same generation as BF 109, Spitfire, Yak, etc.

Somewhat like the Yak, it was stuck with the same engine through most of the war. Unlike the Yak... It was radial powered and couldn't cut weight anymore.

Initially it was successful, but because of a myriad of issues, much less with the design than the limitations of Japan as a nation at the period, it suffered from a poor combat record as the war drew on.

 

Also Japanese industry was really behind so many were literally hand made. Quality control was a bit "eh" and the early war American captured one is a patched up crashed plane that doesn't perform to spec.

 

Then some Japanese Zeroes clubbed the Brits latewar.

 

 

If you are trying self sealing tanks; it cuts the range alot. Modern fighters are said to lack that feature completely.

Share this post


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

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

>superheavy shells don't real

>surface gunnery radar don't real

>superior speed don't real

>superior reloading equipment don't real

>DP secondary battery don't real

>actual TDS don't real

>Panama canal trafficability don't real

>fuel efficiency don't real

>Judging battleships by ideal 1v1 slugfest at known range in ideal weather and visibility instead of what battleships actually do

 

Newsflash: you're retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

>superheavy shells don't real

>radar surface gunnery radar don't real

>superior speed don't real

>superior reloading equipment don't real

>DP secondary battery don't real

>actual TDS don't real

>Panama canal trafficability don't real

>fuel efficiency don't real

>Judging battleships by ideal 1v1 slugfest at known range in ideal weather and visibility instead of what battleships actually do

 

Newsflash: you're retarded.

Super heavy shells still inferior to Yamato's Type 91 AP :/

Yamato's Type 1 AP outclasses Type 91

I didn't deny that. But it won't over turn the odds.

Superior speed is a virtual non factor in comparisons of firepower and dueling ability.

Superior reloading equipment how?

127mm AA of Japan less DP than 5" but the main difference is investment. 5"/38 on American ships really isn't "dual purpose" beyond being a 127mm gun.

Does Iowa get to use inefficient engines and inferior electronics? Oh that's right...

Battleships actually do? What?

 

Bombardment? Yamato's superior firepower wins hands down.

 

Dueling? Yamato wins

 

Not being torpedoed to death? Most (modern) Americans win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. 

 

Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. 

 

The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. 

 

Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR:

 

1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial.

2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that.

3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 

4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 

5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought.

6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class.

7. Battleships do as they're told. 

8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 

9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.

Edited by A. T. Mahan
Added tldr

Share this post


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

 

The test pilot of the Akutan Zero about the Zero:

 

You just said it turned.

 

Now it's a roll?

 

Again Akutan model is not completely representative of many production Zero. But I think it is so. It is an earlier model with 12m wings.

 

The roll is not optimized like the turn is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Peasant,

 

If I may, I'm a bit of a scientist on the internet.

 

First, in regards to the Zero, if it was as good as you claim, why wasn't its name One, or even Three?

 

Secondly, if the Zero was indeed superior, why did the Imperials use them to kamikaze (sp?)  into American Battle Boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

First, in regards to the Zero, if it was as good as you claim, why wasn't its name One, or even Three?

If the Zero was so good, why isn't there a Zero 2?

Share this post


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

You just said it turned.

 

Now it's a roll?

 

Again Akutan model is not completely representative of many production Zero. But I think it is so. It is an earlier model with 12m wings.

 

The roll is not optimized like the turn is.

You want to turn without rolling? Good luck in a dogfight, my dude!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

@Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. 

 

Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. 

 

The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. 

 

 

Check the shells again. 

Tsushima strait showed a battleship that suffered from structural issues, was made around WWI, was neglected for modernization, and came under overwhelming firepower in a surprise attack is vulernable.

Although the battle did demonstrate poor accuracy.

Never denied that the Yamato's FCS was more primitive. Only claimed the main guns have superior mechanical accuracy.

And that the Yamato relied on spotter aircraft for BVR potential. 

 

Careful what you claim about speed. Yamato is capable of 27 knots, or some higher based on the weather. Iowa is rated for 30 knots or 32 knots not sustained. Musashi is claimed at around 28.

 

28+7 = 35 knots; only achieved in shallow water at low loads.

27+7 = 34 knots: you're struggling to get that speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zero was a pretty beast airframe in 41 when up against Buffalos and early marks of Wildcat.  Not so hot against even the F4F. Absolutely totally fucking outclassed by the F6f and F4U.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

If the Zero was so good, why isn't there a Zero 2?

Japan lost WW2

 

kamikaze is because lacking count of experienced pilots and too many airplanes. Zero is actually showing it's main flaw in Kamikaze attacks. 

Share this post


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

Check the shells again. 

Tsushima strait showed a battleship that suffered from structural issues, was made around WWI, was neglected for modernization, and came under overwhelming firepower in a surprise attack is vulernable.

Although the battle did demonstrate poor accuracy.

Never denied that the Yamato's FCS was more primitive. Only claimed the main guns have superior mechanical accuracy.

And that the Yamato relied on spotter aircraft for BVR potential. 

 

Careful what you claim about speed. Yamato is capable of 27 knots, or some higher based on the weather. Iowa is rated for 30 knots or 32 knots not sustained. Musashi is claimed at around 28.

 

28+7 = 35 knots; only achieved in shallow water at low loads.

27+7 = 34 knots: you're struggling to get that speed.

If you have the fuel to run them. Yamatos were absolute fuel hogs in a Navy with... challenges to their fuel supply. Nagato's IMHO, were the much more practical ship.

 

Share this post


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

The Zero was a pretty beast airframe in 41 when up against Buffalos and early marks of Wildcat.  Not so hot against even the F4F. Absolutely totally fucking outclassed by the F6f and F4U.

 

F6F has lower p/w performance because of the airframes weight. It's less maneuverable and while it does roll faster, the Zero losing dogfights comes down more to tactics and the engines altitude performance.

 

Had the Zero an improved engine, which the A6M8 proves it can handle, the F6F would also be outclimbed.

Share this post


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

F6F has lower p/w performance because of the airframes weight. It's less maneuverable and while it does roll faster, the Zero losing dogfights comes down more to tactics and the engines altitude performance.

 

Had the Zero an improved engine, which the A6M8 proves it can handle, the F6F would also be outclimbed.

But... it didn't.  Reality bites.

F6F was also a much more survivable airframe.  Not that it mattered by the time they saw the fight. The Japanese squandered their pilots and didn't build up institutional memory from the successes of the Kido Butai which was monumentally stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

If you have the fuel to run them. Yamatos were absolute fuel hogs in a Navy with... challenges to their fuel supply. Nagato's IMHO, were the much more practical ship.

 

Yeah that's pretty well illustrated by oil production map at the time. Really shows.

 

If you think it through again, Nagato has very limited ability to be used in battle without dying or taking critical damage.

It can't beat most American battleships, it's AA screen is weaker, it's from 1920, it's FCS is less advanced, and it's, generally, fucked.

Share this post


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

But... it didn't.  Reality bites.

F6F was also a much more survivable airframe.  Not that it mattered by the time they saw the fight. The Japanese squandered their pilots and didn't build up institutional memory from the successes of the Kido Butai which was monumentally stupid.

It did in A6M8. Which is derived from the 1942 plan. Which began execution in 1945.

The Zeroes armor would not have helped the Japanese in any meaningful way. Nor would have the self sealing tanks. It would have achieved some aircraft crashing into the sea/not being involved for a series of battles in 1943 though.

 

Monumentally stupid? Do you think they had anything to use otherwise? Send them to training? You can say it's stupid but look at how feasible your plan is.

Share this post


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

F6F has lower p/w performance because of the airframes weight. It's less maneuverable and while it does roll faster, the Zero losing dogfights comes down more to tactics and the engines altitude performance.

 

Had the Zero an improved engine, which the A6M8 proves it can handle, the F6F would also be outclimbed.

It is simply just cringe to read your post, here:

ThyzcX0.pngcG8abst.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When the Iowa and New Jersey attempted to run down the fleeing Japanese destroyer IJN Nowaki near Truk in February 1944, both ships reached 32.5 knots with the throttles wide open, according to the Iowa's pitometer log. With clean bottoms, they probably could have gone a bit over a knot faster. There is no mention of what was the SHP or the displacement on that day.

 

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

×