Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Peasant

Scrublord
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Peasant

  1. 11 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

    Which of the eight or however many points I made are you referring to?

     

    The one where you claim to have data that I spent a week looking for in the library of one of the three best naval architecture schools in the world that I'm like 95% sure doesn't exist?

    A nav weps person did a post on the speeds. Did not show calc. I believed the result to be calculated

  2. 4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

     

    You realize I'm the admin, right?

    I was actually joking.

    I really enjoy reading the articles here, and if I could be entertainment for the well studied, I would try to render assistance to some degree.

    4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

     

    "Going off memory" = all purpose excuse for sourceless cowards.

    You can google it and find it I think.

    3 minutes ago, Akula_941 said:

    No,Russian don't always uses inline and their radial one (Lavochkin) are as good as the yaks and maybe even better.

     

    Ki-84 and N1K both are better than Zero yes but what can they do? N1K fight P51H in 1944 with 620km/h top speed?what is he going to wait P51H to turn and cut it with katana? lmao

    ZgjH0jW.jpg

     

     

    FaxoGih.jpg

     

     

    Ki-84 is the only one that worth getting some credit, since it actually can match F6F,TAIC doesn't care about Ki-84,and giving the estimate report 156A that is totally contradiction to other report like F-1M-1119C-ND (which also is estimate but marked as fucking FACUTAL, TWAT). 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ogypnCf.pngBUT that's it

    it can't even dive right, it's just a shit that is better than the existing shit (Zero)

    eulHxtT.png

    It never reach 687km/h since it's the misread of 156A and F-1M-1119C-ND

    Bushido won't help them, turning rate won't help em. Koyama himself knows better than you Jap plane fan ,he decide to rise wing load and weight exchange horizontal maneuverability to high speed performance.

    that's all, Ha-45 cannot give 1900 horse power. And Hayate is just a broken dream. There goes the end of the story.

    Talking about the Yak specifically.

  3. 6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

    Well, guardianleopard, you've really brought us back to the good old days. Thanks for that. We'll notify your family that you died to feed hungry people in need.

    Lol

     

    I could make a claim just for the heck of it.

     

    Msg and GiB then I actually say. I really like reading this forum. I suppose I turned into shark bait but alls well that ends well right? I (hopefully) served to some benefit.

     

    Because I am freeloading off your postings.

    EE transformed me into a Soviet tank enthusiast already.

  4. 1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

     

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

    This is the deepest I go with Japanese WW2 tech, so I don't have anything to talk about Japanese small arms.

    3 minutes ago, 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?

    Full load & shallow water or? Conditions not stated

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...