Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Peasant

How Not to Post in the Historical Warfare Section

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

And Yamato can into 27.4 or higher. So can musashi. Actually Musashi can into higher speed by almost a knot. (28). Iowa cannot sustain that speed.

 

And the figures I have given are for full load. So I'll assume 27/28 area for Yamato, 32 max Iowa. Load changes speed :/

Share this post


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

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 the aircraft crashing into the sea/not being involved for much of the pacific war however.

 

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.

3

 

It did in A6M8? what did in A6M8? i see nothing lol

ENx5CNf.png

boHeS6l.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

referte aut morimini, bitch

 

And be specific.

It's hard to give specific articles when I can't access the articles online anymore. Are they blocked in other countries now? Or are they actually down for maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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.

 

Tsushima Strait was in 1905. I think you're conflating it with Surigao Strait. There's a big fucking difference, as I outlined in an edit to my initial post in this thread. To summarize, the IJN beat the shit out of the Imperial Russian Navy because their ships were a knot faster, slightly more maneuverable, and had a gun armament biased towards heavy guns. The same thing also happened at the Battle of the Yellow Sea the year before. 

 

Mechanical accuracy means dick all if you can't point the gun in the right direction because the FCS is primitive and incapable of working when you're turning.

 

Spotter aircraft are going to get killed either by 5"/38 fire if it's close enough to give meaningful corrections, or by fighter cover, or by the Curtis SC Seahawks on the Iowa

 

Yamato was capable of 27 knots, period. I don't have access to the data anymore (it's probably in the SNAME or RINA journal, or at the DTMB), but I saw some hull testing on the design that they did after the war at the David Taylor Model Basin and it was kinda meh -- it's a pretty efficient hull design with a good bulbous bow, but the Iowa hull form is better suited to high speed, and the powerplant is 62,000hp more powerful than that of the Yamatos. It turns out, when you design a ship that's bluffer, 25,000 tons heavier, and less powerful, it's like five knots slower than a ship with a crazy long L:B and a super fine entry. The Iowas were designed from the get-go to be insanely fast, and they accomplished that handily.

 

Oh, and for the sake of argument, if we assume the Iowas could only sustain 30kts (which, again, is not accurate), they were still 2.5-3 knots faster than the Yamatos, which is double or treble the speed advantage that Togo had over Rozhestvensky at Tsushima. 

Share this post


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

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.

Just to clarify, this is what I edited my initial post to add:

 

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 when the Japanese couldn't see or reliably engage at long ranges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did conflate them.

 

They weren't a knot faster lol

 

The Russians couldn't make their maximum speed because they have traveled around the world, and their ships were poorly kept (again traveling). They have little to no practice for a while and then met the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The Japanese navy trained extensively and waited.

 

The Russian Navy didn't deviate from path and took terrible losses.

 

The result was Russian gunnery was not very accurate, nor could they reach their paper speed. The battle ended in catastrophe.

 

FCS was covered in the Fischer Archives. It's completely capable of generating the necessary fire solutions.

 

Aside from that, Battleships tend not to make so many maneuvers in duels.

Share this post


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

Yes, I did conflate them.

 

They weren't a knot faster lol

 

The Russians couldn't make their maximum speed because they have traveled around the world, and their ships were poorly kept (again traveling). They have little to no practice for a while and then met the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The Japanese navy trained extensively and waited.

 

The Russian Navy didn't deviate from path and took terrible losses.

 

The result was Russian gunnery was not very accurate, nor could they reach their paper speed. The battle ended in catastrophe.

 

FCS was covered in the Fischer Archives. It's completely capable of generating the necessary fire solutions.

 

Aside from that, Battleships tend not to make so many maneuvers in duels.

Uh wat?

 

Share this post


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

I don't read Japanese unfortunately.

 

Can you tell me the meaning?

long sentence short,  “Zero is already have no advantage against F4F-4 in East Solomon,and later facing F6F with 2x stronger engine power Zero is being slaughtered one side. This end up by a total massacre in battle of philipean sea(マリアナ沖海戦)"

second part is pretty much shitting on japanese zero lover " Zero is the most famous aircraft made by japan , the sign of japanese industry and patriotism. I (the author) can understand this emotion and feeling of yours(japan local zero lover), but as a weapon it get outclassed very quickly, battle of east solomon is where it falls, and later become basically free EXP."

Share this post


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

It's hard to give specific articles when I can't access the articles online anymore. Are they blocked in other countries now? Or are they actually down for maintenance?

 

I HAVE NO SOURCES BUT I MUST SHITPOST

Share this post


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

Just to clarify, this is what I edited my initial post to add:

 

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 when the Japanese couldn't see or reliably engage at long ranges. 

1:

I would like to see that, I believe you.

 

2:

Except Yamato actually did do that. Samar is proof of it.

 

3:

Answered

 

4:

Doesn't Yamato's loading system have a few degrees of leeway?

Otherwise, I understand

 

5:

It's not DP in the sense that it lacks AP and raw power.

 

6:

Wrong way around :/

 

8:

With Iowa's lack of powerful secondaries, and ROF advantage shrinking the greater the distance, does it not go to Yamato?

9:

But in a duel all he can do is run. Ok.

Yamato has some degree of effectiveness at night but I think it would lose then, yes.

Share this post


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

Uh wat?

 

Dodging isn't really feasible. BB to BB they would close range and exchange fire. Battleships would close to shorter ranges for fire effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Akula_941 said:

long sentence short,  “Zero is already have no advantage against F4F-4 in East Solomon,and later facing F6F with 2x stronger engine power Zero is being slaughtered one side. This end up by a total massacre in battle of philipean sea(マリアナ沖海戦)"

second part is pretty much shitting on japanese zero lover " Zero is the most famous aircraft made by japan , the sign of japanese industry and patriotism. I (the author) can understand this emotion and feeling of yours(japan local zero lover), but as a weapon it get outclassed very quickly, battle of east solomon is where it falls, and later become basically free EXP."

Engine is too weak & even weaker at alt, even with "better" planes Japan cannot fix disproportionate kill ratio.

 

Product of communications, pilot skill, and compounding issues.

 

Is that not so?

 

 

Or is there a genuine technical unsolvable disadvantage with the Zero?

Share this post


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

Dodging isn't really feasible. BB to BB they would close range and exchange fire. Battleships would close to shorter ranges for fire effectiveness.

Citation needed.

Dodging was effective for bombs, let alone fire from 30km away.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I HAVE NO SOURCES BUT I MUST SHITPOST

Robert Lundgren the World Wondered has an expansive analysis.

 

Fischer archive unavailable.

 

Naval Weapons

 

 

You use the Fischer Archive, and Naval weapons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Peasant said:

At 30km. 

 

Samar, you mean the battle where the Japanese ran away from a few escort carriers despite having the advantage in the most lopsided battle in naval history? You mean the battle where the Japs got their guns on target with fucking dye shells like the low technology barbarians they were? That Battle of Samar?

 

2 minutes ago, Peasant said:

 

 

Share this post


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

Engine is too weak & even weaker at alt, even with "better" planes Japan cannot fix disproportionate kill ratio.

 

Product of communications, pilot skill, and compounding issues.

 

Is that not so?

 

 

Or is there a genuine technical unsolvable disadvantage with the Zero?

better plane my ass,go found a japanese fighter plane that can stably reach 650km/h. NOT EVEN ONE.

Russian can do it with weak engine, why won't japanese? trash is trash

Share this post


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

Robert Lundgren the World Wondered has an expansive analysis.

 

Fischer archive unavailable.

 

Naval Weapons

 

 

You use the Fischer Archive, and Naval weapons. 

 

That isn't how you cite sources, turd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 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.

Except every mark of hellcat was faster than any production zero. Speed is the most important fighter factor.

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

×