How Not to Post in the Historical Warfare Section

[Peasant]

Just now, Belesarius said:

Citation needed.

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

 

 

BB duel*

Yamato more maneuverable and loses less speed in turn.

Gunfire negligible effect at 30 km except for wasting shells. (Most miss)

[A. T. Mahan]

4 minutes 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.

 

The IJN's fleet was capable of 15kts on paper to Rozhestvensky's 14, and the Russians didn't leave formation or course because they were running flat out for Port Arthur. 

 

Yes, the IJN was more proficient and better rested than the Russians, both at Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait. That doesn't mean that their better speed and maneuverability were not a major factor in their victory, or that it did not influence every subsequent major battleship design. 

 

Generating fire control solutions and maintaining them are not the same thing -- if your fire control computer doesn't work when you're turning because it doesn't have a gyroscope to tell it what vertical is, that's a bit of a problem and will invalidate the firing solution. 

 

If I'm in a ship that's faster than my enemy and I am in a disadvantageous position, I will use that speed advantage to put my ship in an advantageous position. It would be immensely stupid to simply sail alongside at the same speed and a set range and let them fire upon you when one could withdraw beyond their range, maintain a good track, and then close when a better situation presents itself. I would want someone who fought their ship in a manner as you suggest tried for dereliction of duty. 

 

I would like to see what a 6" gun would do to a battleship at a reasonable combat range. The answer is, of course, nothing of consequence because 6" guns fire maybe a 150lb projectile, versus nearly a thousand pounds for a 12" gun. 

 

You cannot have leeway in the loading angle of a battleship gun, because the spanning tray is made of several thousand pounds of brass and if you have it at the wrong angle it won't be properly supported and will break in half, dropping a couple thousand pounds of shell or the better part of a thousand pounds of powder onto the deck.

 

Running away from a duel is a viable tactic, because the Japanese didn't have enough oil and making the Yamato enter a stern chase over several hundred or thousand miles will serve a strategic aim of attriting their oil supplies. 

 

Could I have a citation for that losing-speed-in-a-turn that's not World of Warships? Cause I've not seen the trials reports from Yamato -- my understanding is they were destroyed between the completion of the trials and the end of the war.

[Peasant]

4 minutes ago, Akula_941 said:

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

Later models like Ki 84 and N1K, are superior to Zero are they not?

 

Because Russian plane uses inline, so less drag. Japan does not try so much.

1 minute ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

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

Climb rate, energy retention, acceleration, roll rate, turn rate, are important.

To a point but the acceleration is very important in that, no?

[Bronezhilet]

27 minutes ago, Peasant 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 :/

The Yamato reportedly achieved 28.05 knots during overload power and 27.61 at official trail power. Iowa achieved the 32.5 knots in actual battle. In machinery trails the Iowa reached 35.2 knots.

 

So what are we going to compare, trail speeds or combat speeds? Either way, the Yamato is getting stomped.

[Peasant]

11 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

 

The IJN's fleet was capable of 15kts on paper to Rozhestvensky's 14, and the Russians didn't leave formation or course because they were running flat out for Port Arthur. 

 

Yes, the IJN was more proficient and better rested than the Russians, both at Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait. That doesn't mean that their better speed and maneuverability were not a major factor in their victory, or that it did not influence every subsequent major battleship design. 

 

Generating fire control solutions and maintaining them are not the same thing -- if your fire control computer doesn't work when you're turning because it doesn't have a gyroscope to tell it what vertical is, that's a bit of a problem and will invalidate the firing solution. 

 

If I'm in a ship that's faster than my enemy and I am in a disadvantageous position, I will use that speed advantage to put my ship in an advantageous position. It would be immensely stupid to simply sail alongside at the same speed and a set range and let them fire upon you when one could withdraw beyond their range, maintain a good track, and then close when a better situation presents itself. I would want someone who fought their ship in a manner as you suggest tried for dereliction of duty. 

 

I would like to see what a 6" gun would do to a battleship at a reasonable combat range. The answer is, of course, nothing of consequence because 6" guns fire maybe a 150lb projectile, versus nearly a thousand pounds for a 12" gun. 

 

You cannot have leeway in the loading angle of a battleship gun, because the spanning tray is made of several thousand pounds of brass and if you have it at the wrong angle it won't be properly supported and will break in half, dropping a couple thousand pounds of shell or the better part of a thousand pounds of powder onto the deck.

 

Running away from a duel is a viable tactic, because the Japanese didn't have enough oil and making the Yamato enter a stern chase over several hundred or thousand miles will serve a strategic aim of attriting their oil supplies. 

 

Could I have a citation for that losing-speed-in-a-turn that's not World of Warships? Cause I've not seen the trials reports from Yamato -- my understanding is they were destroyed between the completion of the trials and the end of the war.

Last is a hydrodynamics calculation? I will have to check again to give you link.

In reality it is unimportant for a BB duel.

 

Fischer Archive being down is handicap play nice (jk I be fuked)

 

That would be if you knew your enemy was OP, you would run away. You would probably notice once you entered visual range how in trouble you would be.

 

F1M2 is superior to OS2U Kingfishers.

[Peasant]

3 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

The Yamato reportedly achieved 28.05 knots during overload power and 27.61 at official trail power. Iowa achieved the 32.5 knots in actual battle. In machinery trails the Iowa reached 35.2 knots.

 

So what are we going to compare, trail speeds or combat speeds? Either way, the Yamato is getting stomped.

I explained that already. If you cheat in shallow water and not full load, you change the speed.

[Sturgeon]

1 minute ago, Peasant said:

I explained that already. If you cheat in shallow water and not full load, you change the speed.

 

Dude the Iowa has 62,000 more hp and is 25,000 tonnes lighter, quit playin.

[N-L-M]

15 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.

hoo boy you are the fullest retard I've ever met. Your damping coefficient nears infinity and your Q approximates 0.

So, one at a time:

 

The USN superheavy shells more than match the IJNs shit. The IJN shells are only around 3200lb on a bore 2" greater. This means that their sectional density is worse, by a factor of roughly 7%. This basically nullifies any advantage you'd expect from a larger shell, and indeed the penetration of both guns is very similar. But the US guns are lighter, faster in both aiming and loading, and have far superior fire control layout, equipment, and technology. The Ford mk 1 Fire control computer was very good for the time and the Yamato had nothing of the kind. Optical rangefinders are fairly inaccurate, and ranging with them must be carried out in concert with salvo spotting. Radar gunnery gives very accurate ranges not only for the target but also for the shell splashes in each salvo, allowing quick and accurate correction of fire. Yamato falls WAAAAY short of the Iowa in this regard. Radar observation also works at night and in bad weather, where optical doesn't. There's a reason literally the entire world moved on to radar, and claiming otherwise is just objectively wrong no matter how you try to compensate. Read a bit about Surigao Strait and learn what integrated FCS with radars does.

 

You clearly have not been educated on the classics of battleship design and optimization. A speed advantage greater than 3 knots pretty much allows the Iowa to not only dictate the range, but also maneuver to avoid fire in a stern chase without losing the Yamato. The Iowa's superior FCS, in combination with superior turret drives, allows her to maneuver while firing with little loss of accuracy, and in a stern chase the Yamato would only have one turret available. For broadside fighting, salvo dodging would keep the Iowa very safe while she controls the range, while the Yamato cannot maneuver like that without giving up any semblance of accuracy.

 

The Iowa's reloading equipment was faster, not only because of the automatic gun indexing and elevating during runout- the Iowa's shell hoists lead directly into the ramming tray, and the 2-stage powder cart eases handling which again speeds the procedure, while  the whole system involves fewer, lighter moving parts and less complicated mechanisms improving reliability.

 

If you don't know what makes the US 5"/38 a DP gun you have no business taking its name in vain. Protip- it's everything other than the gun itself that matters. from the semiautomatic ramming to the automatic fuze setters to the surface/AA director control to the turret drives and elevation range to the ammo scuttles and handling rooms. The USN 5"/38 is far and away the best intermediate gun of the war, even before VT became a thing. And with radar director control, vs a AoN armored ship, it's more effective than the Jap 6.1". Against destroyers as well, as they were not armored. The greater number of guns firing faster and more accurately the Iowa can bring to bear against any enemy ship or aircraft blows your Jap mess out of the water. Or at least it would had carrier aviation not gotten to it first.

 

Do you know what a fineness ratio is? The Iowa has a far more efficient hull shape, and is much lighter and therefore smaller. Getting an Iowa places involves less fuel expenditure, particularly at high speeds. The Iowa has 212k SHP max, compared to the Yamato's 150k SHP. But power requirements roughly scale with the cube of the speed, and to reack 28kn, 1 knot faster than the Yamato can ever go, the Iowa needs only 110k SHP. It is a more efficient design.

 

Battleships fight enemy ships at unknown ranges in rough weather, provide AA coverage to carriers and taskforces, bombard shore targets, and so on.

In fact, let's take a look at the history of battleship actions, going backwards:
Surigao Strait: night and poor weather.
North Cape: Terrible weather in the early morning.

Second Guadalcanal: Night.

Casablanca: Clear day, supporting a landing.

Shrekking of Bismarck: Clear Day, once the Bismarck could no longer run away after getting torpedoed (as it too was a shit design).

Denmark Strait: morning, good visibility. Long range.

Cape Spartivento: Day, long range.

Beginning to get the idea? the battles are not a 2-way shooting range, they are more complex and tend to greatly degrade optical visibility.

Battleships also support landings, in which case fire support is essential. The USN HC 16" holds 70 kg of explosive, 10 more than the equivalent IJN 18" shell. So any claims that the Jap shell is superior belong in the trash, next to your opinions. But the Iowa has 150 rounds per gun, while the Yamato only has around 100. So the Iowa has more firepower to rain down on targets. When it comes to secondaries the capacity disparity is huge- 500 RPG for the Iowa, and only 150 for the Yamato 6.1" and 300 RPG for its 5". Again, Yamato loses. It just can't compete, it is deficient in firepower and staying power.

 

1v1 duel? I'd put good money on the Iowa winning. If it's during the day it can simply stay away until night, and then come in and wreck the Yamato because the Japs were bad at radar and literally cannot do anything other than fire at muzzle flashes at long range at night. In more normal conditions, the Iowa has already won.

 

Americans were actually competent TDS designers, and the Japs sucked at it. Deal with it bitchboi.

 

TL;DR: learn a thing or two about ships before posting about them.

[Peasant]

1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Dude the Iowa has 62,000 more hp and is 25,000 tonnes lighter, quit playin.

And propellers supercaviating bork that completely :/

[Toxn]

1 hour ago, Peasant 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.

I wouldn't bring efficiency into any discussion about the Yamato, to be honest.

 

But I am glad that you can recognise why we're arguing about 'the best' battleship in the first place.

[Sturgeon]

Just now, Peasant said:

And propellers supercaviating bork that completely :/

 

You can't even spell supercavitating and also that's bullshit and proves you don't know how supercavitation works.

[Bronezhilet]

7 minutes ago, Peasant said:

I explained that already. If you cheat in shallow water and not full load, you change the speed.

Running at 35.2 in shallow water for 6 hours straight?

[Sturgeon]

This guy can't even into t/w ratios

[Peasant]

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

You can't even spell supercavitating and also that's bullshit and proves you don't know how supercavitation works.

I'm on a phone so bear with me.

 

And New Jersey can't do 35 unless in Shallow water and on lower load.

5 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

hoo boy you are the fullest retard I've ever met. Your damping coefficient nears infinity and your Q approximates 0.

So, one at a time:

 

The USN superheavy shells more than match the IJNs shit. The IJN shells are only around 3200lb on a bore 2" greater. This means that their sectional density is worse, by a factor of roughly 7%. This basically nullifies any advantage you'd expect from a larger shell, and indeed the penetration of both guns is very similar. But the US guns are lighter, faster in both aiming and loading, and have far superior fire control layout, equipment, and technology. The Ford mk 1 Fire control computer was very good for the time and the Yamato had nothing of the kind. Optical rangefinders are fairly inaccurate, and ranging with them must be carried out in concert with salvo spotting. Radar gunnery gives very accurate ranges not only for the target but also for the shell splashes in each salvo, allowing quick and accurate correction of fire. Yamato falls WAAAAY short of the Iowa in this regard. Radar observation also works at night and in bad weather, where optical doesn't. There's a reason literally the entire world moved on to radar, and claiming otherwise is just objectively wrong no matter how you try to compensate. Read a bit about Surigao Strait and learn what integrated FCS with radars does.

 

You clearly have not been educated on the classics of battleship design and optimization. A speed advantage greater than 3 knots pretty much allows the Iowa to not only dictate the range, but also maneuver to avoid fire in a stern chase without losing the Yamato. The Iowa's superior FCS, in combination with superior turret drives, allows her to maneuver while firing with little loss of accuracy, and in a stern chase the Yamato would only have one turret available. For broadside fighting, salvo dodging would keep the Iowa very safe while she controls the range, while the Yamato cannot maneuver like that without giving up any semblance of accuracy.

 

The Iowa's reloading equipment was faster, not only because of the automatic gun indexing and elevating during runout- the Iowa's shell hoists lead directly into the ramming tray, and the 2-stage powder cart eases handling which again speeds the procedure, while  the whole system involves fewer, lighter moving parts and less complicated mechanisms improving reliability.

 

If you don't know what makes the US 5"/38 a DP gun you have no business taking its name in vain. Protip- it's everything other than the gun itself that matters. from the semiautomatic ramming to the automatic fuze setters to the surface/AA director control to the turret drives and elevation range to the ammo scuttles and handling rooms. The USN 5"/38 is far and away the best intermediate gun of the war, even before VT became a thing. And with radar director control, vs a AoN armored ship, it's more effective than the Jap 6.1". Against destroyers as well, as they were not armored. The greater number of guns firing faster and more accurately the Iowa can bring to bear against any enemy ship or aircraft blows your Jap mess out of the water. Or at least it would had carrier aviation not gotten to it first.

 

Do you know what a fineness ratio is? The Iowa has a far more efficient hull shape, and is much lighter and therefore smaller. Getting an Iowa places involves less fuel expenditure, particularly at high speeds. The Iowa has 212k SHP max, compared to the Yamato's 150k SHP. But power requirements roughly scale with the cube of the speed, and to reack 28kn, 1 knot faster than the Yamato can ever go, the Iowa needs only 110k SHP. It is a more efficient design.

 

Battleships fight enemy ships at unknown ranges in rough weather, provide AA coverage to carriers and taskforces, bombard shore targets, and so on.

In fact, let's take a look at the history of battleship actions, going backwards:
Surigao Strait: night and poor weather.
North Cape: Terrible weather in the early morning.

Second Guadalcanal: Night.

Casablanca: Clear day, supporting a landing.

Shrekking of Bismarck: Clear Day, once the Bismarck could no longer run away after getting torpedoed (as it too was a shit design).

Denmark Strait: morning, good visibility. Long range.

Cape Spartivento: Day, long range.

Beginning to get the idea? the battles are not a 2-way shooting range, they are more complex and tend to greatly degrade optical visibility.

Battleships also support landings, in which case fire support is essential. The USN HC 16" holds 70 kg of explosive, 10 more than the equivalent IJN 18" shell. So any claims that the Jap shell is superior belong in the trash, next to your opinions. But the Iowa has 150 rounds per gun, while the Yamato only has around 100. So the Iowa has more firepower to rain down on targets. When it comes to secondaries the capacity disparity is huge- 500 RPG for the Iowa, and only 150 for the Yamato 6.1" and 300 RPG for its 5". Again, Yamato loses. It just can't compete, it is deficient in firepower and staying power.

 

1v1 duel? I'd put good money on the Iowa winning. If it's during the day it can simply stay away until night, and then come in and wreck the Yamato because the Japs were bad at radar and literally cannot do anything other than fire at muzzle flashes at long range at night. In more normal conditions, the Iowa has already won.

 

Americans were actually competent TDS designers, and the Japs sucked at it. Deal with it bitchboi.

 

TL;DR: learn a thing or two about ships before posting about them.

TDS designs on Japanese ships tend to be shallower and more conservative, to say nothing of the quality of each design.

 

Why would Yamato run?

 

I'm not claiming otherwise: I am skeptical that the advantage in adjusting for pattern will change much.

 

Night fight wise; doesn't Fischer claim Yamato has night vision RF's?

 

The world wondered. What really happened at Samar.

[Sturgeon]

Oh we're not bearing with you, trust me.

[Peasant]

6 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Running at 35.2 in shallow water for 6 hours straight?

It turns out you can make the Yamato go pretty fast too, by running in shallow water.

[Peasant]

5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

This guy can't even into t/w ratios

T/W does not transfer directly into speed.

 

Iowa has issues going faster than 33 at combat load, at sea, sustained. Azumazi (WT F) made that claim or some variation.

[Sturgeon]

God you are dumb.

[Toxn]

2 minutes ago, Peasant said:

 

The world wondered. What really happened at Samar.

Sports analogy: the Japanese A team got beat by an American team made up entirely of asthmatic fat kids and a few underweight back benchers.

[Sturgeon]

Next you're gonna claim the Yamato was actually nuclear powered.

[Toxn]

You know what, this is glorious.

 

@Peasant teach us while you're with us: what other sacred cows must be overthrown?

[Bronezhilet]

Just now, Peasant said:

It turns out you can make the Yamato go pretty fast too, by running in shallow water.

You keep repeating the shallow water meme, but where in the fuck did you get it from?

 

I've been looking for a while for sources on it, but I can't find anything. Only thing I can find is that the New Jersey sailed at 35.2 knots for 6 hours straight. So you're saying that it found a 390 km long stretch of shallow water at exactly the right depth?

[Sturgeon]

Peasant: The Yamato is my waifu and I identify as it having advanced gunnery, night vision, supercavitating props, and an ice cream parlor.

[Sturgeon]

Just now, Bronezhilet said:

You keep repeating the shallow water meme, but where in the fuck did you get it from?

 

I've been looking for a while for sources on it, but I can't find anything. Only thing I can find is that the New Jersey sailed at 35.2 knots for 6 hours straight. So you're saying that it found a 390 km long stretch of shallow water at exactly the right depth?

 

Oh he has sources. No he can't cite them or even throw a hyperlink at you. So you just gotta believe him. Because he's right, obviously. For the sake of Imperial Nippon fandom, he must be right.

[Sturgeon]

2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

You know what, this is glorious.

 

@Peasant teach us while you're with us: what other sacred cows must be overthrown?

 

Please please please let him make claims about IJA small arms next!