Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LostCosmonaut

Overrated Allied Weaponry in World War II

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pascal said:

Born and lived in Belarus, moved to Georgia and then back, some stuff to do in Moldova, pretty good internet here, home is better of course, hope to never come here again though.

 

Relevant 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pascal said:

So he looked at the tables an said that i looked at the 15 deviation, while clearly on the table at the right shows production optics on mosins getting a 14,6 at 100.'

While also not mentioning that the mauser wasn't even zeroed.

 

You don't understand the difference between accuracy and precision, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 7:40 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

The forum etiquette is listed there in Open. We've told everyone what we want to see in a poster. You've got fourteen posts, none of them contain documents or sources. All you've done is argue with well-established members and sent in one spurious report, which is a serious pet peeve of mine. I would recommend not doing that.

 

If all that sounds onerous to you, then yeah, maybe this forum isn't a good fit.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 7:49 PM, Donward said:

 

Relevant 

 

 

 

Yo, that's about Moldova, not the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The USS Franklin took more than two "bomb hits" if you want to be honest about it. The ship was also not at battle stations, but just ignore the full hanger deck and deck park with fuel and armed planes, with bombs, rockets, and full fuel tanks... Nearly 100 of them.  That's going to count more than 7 bombs hits not all at once. Hell the Enterprise took three and kept on operating.  The Illustrious was out of action 10 months after a couple of her bomb hits.  

 

Can I start counting the AC and munitions on british carriers then? The role of carriers is to transport AC and munitions, and not let the enemy set fire to them - bad damage control is not enemy action.

 

After tanking more bomb hits than any US carrier, Illustrious went to malta for repairs and was bombed again. Then bombed again (because the med is not the pacific, you're in everyone's airforce's back yard). It took 5 months to get to Norfolk yard, half of the time spent out of action was due to the lack of ports in europe that weren't being bombed

 

22 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Besides, no one is saying they were not tough ships, sure they were tough, they could take some damage.

 

On 2/3/2019 at 4:54 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

I doubt a Brit Carrier would have lived through what the Franklin took under similar circumstances.  

 

You're the one claiming two bombs is enough to total one :rolleyes:

 

22 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The Enterprise was still a more useful carrier after three bomb hits in the Solomon Islands.  But how did she operate without an armored flight deck after taking bombs right?

 

Let me spell it out one more time. The armored flight decks crippled them as useful carriers.  The idea that they needed that Armor was flawed, and having an actual usefully sized air group negates the need for the Armor.   I mean YAY, the Brits had tough, but nearly useless carriers, I guess.  I suppose they worked well enough against a second string naval power like Nazi's though. 

 

And having your max speed cut to 24 knots permanently by bomb damage counts as serious structural problems or another of the class taking permanent distortion to the hull. Granted the Brits were not as good at building and fixing ships, even US shipyards couldn't have economically repaired them.  

 

Up against smaller bombs, and less of them, the US carriers were the right tool for the job. In europe the conditions were different, and so the ideal carrier ends up prioritising other qualities (like ignoring carrier v carrier fleet actions, because nazi's as you point out).

 

Did any US carrier take a 1-ton bomb and keep on trucking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart Slade is an analyst with an engineering background.  He often posts quality material online.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.php

 

It's a complex issue but the best defense was interceptors and escort guns.  The RN adoption of armored decks was an admission of weak interceptors and escort AA capability.  Was it the right decision?  Maybe for the Med.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

Stuart Slade is an analyst with an engineering background.  He often posts quality material online.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.php

 

It's a complex issue but the best defense was interceptors and escort guns.  The RN adoption of armored decks was an admission of weak interceptors and escort AA capability.  Was it the right decision?  Maybe for the Med.

 

Yeah, that's been one of my points, with a useful size airwing, they might not have taken all those bombs hits, of course, the Brits had awful carrier aircraft until the USA LL them some real planes. So maybe armor seemed like the only choice, still seems like a bad one for a nation going broke. They could have saved money on the armor, built a cheaper ship with a real air wing and maybe had six of them.  

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

After tanking more bomb hits than any US carrier, Illustrious went to malta for repairs and was bombed again. Then bombed again (because the med is not the pacific, you're in everyone's airforce's back yard). It took 5 months to get to Norfolk yard, half of the time spent out of action was due to the lack of ports in europe that weren't being bombed

 

 

( The point was bombs going off in loaded airplanes counts as more than two bombs) ((the other point was the ship wasn't ready for combat so damage control was slow, awipred

 

 

You're the one claiming two bombs is enough to total one :rolleyes: (WTF are you on? The Franklin didn't sink and sailed home under her own power)

 

 

Up against smaller bombs, and less of them, the US carriers were the right tool for the job. In europe the conditions were different, and so the ideal carrier ends up prioritising other qualities (like ignoring carrier v carrier fleet actions, because nazi's as you point out).

 

Did any US carrier take a 1-ton bomb and keep on trucking?

8
5

 

What is the purpose of an Aircraft Carrier?  

To employ aircraft against naval and land targets and defend the fleet. 

 

What's better, Armor, that is entirely defensive, or a bigger air wing that can do both?     

 

 

You know the name of the thread is overrated allied weapons, not allied weapons that got the job done in spite of being basically terrible. Even if I concede your point about them being designed for the Med, they were used not just in the Med, and were shitty, nearly useless ships in the Pacific.  

 

 

An armored target that can tote around ONLY 35 planes and launch them slowly,  seems a bit overrated.   Hell, the only thing you even claim they do well, is take damage and survive.  If you actually think they are good carriers, you prove my point, since that's overrating them lol. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 6:53 AM, Sturgeon said:

This is the expected accuracy standard (not acceptance standard):
 

1522596115294-png.328788

 

1522596401493-png.328790

 

This means you can expect a brand new K98 shooting sS ball to print a group where 94% of shots hit an area 8cm high and 6cm wide at 100m. And for the record, German sniper rifles were just taken off the line, not selected for accuracy or anything!

 

So basically, these are 3-4 minute guns:

hq74gpj.jpg

 

"The figures represent average values shot with new rifles. It can not be demanded that every individidual rifle corresponds to these dispersions at every distance"

 

 

3~4 MOA is a reasonable expectation for an issue weapon.

It's about what you'd get from "Average Conscript, Mk1Mod1" with a modicum of training and a sound rifle firing reasonable ammo.

 

Of the Mausers I've owned, only the Swedish variants really impressed me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...