Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

Man, was it that long ago?

Looking good, I like that DV M4A1!

44 minutes ago, LostCosmonaut said:

I had just assumed his signature was some Tier 3 Russian meme I didn't comprehend.

LOL me too!     But not in a #metooway!

1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

 

HMS Vanguard

Pretty, but overrated, and a fitting end the Royal Navy's Battleships. 

Was he made to face the door? 

3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yes, British Internet Police!

Hey, if they do the COPS how in England, do they replace to cool intro song, with the Bennie Hill theme?

5 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

Internet Police )) 

oh no... 

Just plain law enfofcement, that just block such haters and provacators of violence as you.

And it is not Internet Police ((

Hey, buddy, fuck you and whatever police you think can help you. We're in Murcia, (fuck Yea), and we can say anything want, like Fuck you, Fuck the Queen and fuck your mom! 

8 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

"hitfit you decided to throw"

 

 

This is a wise descision... 

And no I Did not  "decided to throw".... I just offered you to remove this provocations, also embarrassing things you allow to post.

You don't define this post as embarrassing?

Well, this should be fun to watch. 

The most important bit is the remove anime part!

23 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Oh wow.  This is a fucking cool shot from above the wreck of the Hornet. Note how intact the wreck is, with the island largely intact.  Some of the stern is missing, or crumpled in the sonar shadow.  But man, for a ship that took such a beating she looks largely intact.  @Collimatrix, @A. T. Mahan,

 

That's pretty cool. Some of the other pics shows very little decay to a lot of the ship!

Quote

nearly 17,500 feet 

That's DEEP!

Misgender tranny, go to jail. We do not even have to joke about the UK being a fascist state.  And like Tim points out, the left in the US wants to take us there too.    But orange man bad right?

New theory, SQH didn't quit posting because we abused him, cause it was fun.  Maybe someone reported him and the cops came to his house and muzzled him!

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  (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. 

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. 

From Wiki, but good enough for this: 

Quote

Before dawn on 19 March 1945, Franklin, which had maneuvered to within 50 miles (80 km) of the Japanese mainland, closer than any other U.S. carrier during the war, launched a fighter sweep against Honshū and later a strike against shipping in Kobe Harbor. The Franklin crew had been called to battle stations twelve times within six hours that night and Gehres downgraded the alert status to Condition III, allowing his men freedom to eat or sleep, although gunnery crews remained at their stations.^[9]

Suddenly, a single aircraft – possibly a Yokosuka D4Y "Judy" dive bomber, though other accounts suggest an Aichi D3A "Val", also a dive bomber – pierced the cloud cover and made a low level run on the ship to drop two semi-armor-piercing bombs. The damage analysis came to the conclusion that the bombs were 550 pounds (250 kg). Accounts differ as to whether the attacking aircraft escaped or was shot down.

One bomb struck the flight deck centerline, penetrating to the hangar deck, causing destruction and igniting fires through the second and third decks, and knocking out the Combat Information Center and air plot. The second hit aft, tearing through two decks. At the time she was struck, Franklin had 31 armed and fueled aircraft warming up on her flight deck. The hangar deck contained planes, of which 16 were fueled and five were armed. The forward gasoline system had been secured, but the aft system was operating. The explosion on the hangar deck ignited the fuel tanks on the aircraft, and gasoline vapor explosion devastated the deck. Only two crewmen survived the fire. The explosion also jumbled aircraft together on the flight deck above, causing further fires and explosions and detonating 12 "Tiny Tim" air-to-surface rockets. Franklin was dead in the water, without radio communications, and broiling in the heat from enveloping fires. On the bridge, Captain Gehres ordered Franklin's magazines flooded but this could not be carried out as the ship's water mains were destroyed by the explosions or fire. Admiral Ralph Davison transferred his flag to the destroyer USS Miller by breeches buoy and suggested abandoning ship, but Gehres refused to scuttle the Franklin as there were still many men alive below deck.

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

3 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

By far the most integral part of the BE was India and the path from London to Bombay ran through the Mediterranean where the Brits were probably the most vulnerable. Still, US carriers >UK carriers

 

 

Yeah, for the Illustrious class, they had an Air Group of 36 planes for 23,000 tons and 30 knots and a rather sad range of 10,000 miles at 10 knots.  Even if you're generous, and give them the late war, Americanesque deck parks, they only got to 56 planes.  

The Yorktown's are so much better and proved really tough.  On a Yorky you get, an Air group of 100 aircraft, though for 19,900 tons, and 32.5 knots and a range of 10,000 miles at 15 knots.   

There are some operational problems the Armored deck carriers had as well. They did not have as big of magazines and aviation fuel supplies as the American Carriers, and their lower rangers really hampered their usefulness against Japan.  I've read many US Navy officers opinions at the time, after operating with the Royal Navy off Japan, the British Carriers were almost more trouble than they were worth, since they barely bettered the CVE and CVLs int he US navy in A/C capacity, and were a pain in the ass to refuel and rearm at Sea. 

3 hours ago, Toxn said:

I think UK carriers suffered from battleship admiral syndrome really badly in the UK.

 

When all your high-ups can think of for a carrier to do is act as a spotter/fighter cover screen for the main gun line, then trying to make it as much like an armoured cruiser as possible makes sense. You don't need 70 planes for the job, after all.

 

You can see this in the fleet air arm carrier fighters - all of the ones the RN got a hand in designing ended up with 2-3 crew so the could do double duty as spotters.

Clearly, the UK and the Royal Navy had many poor thinkers on the future use of the Carrier. The Navy had them too, but an awful lot of the best and brightest int he US Navy learned to fly.   I think the operating in the Med, so we had to have small air groups and armor was a silly argument, and the aircraft Carriers they produced were garbage. The armor was only good for 500 pounds, and the ships took structural damage instead of lighter deck damage, permanently affecting at least one of them.  Putting the main structure deck like the Armored deck on Brit CVs that high on a ship of that size just compromised everything else about it, and didn't give it great damage resistance.  For an Armored deck like that, you need a Forestal class size ship or bigger to make it work, and some super secret to this day structure magic to make it work with deck edge elevators. 

I mean come on, you want to operate CVs in the med and you can choose 4 Yorktown or four Illustrious class ships?

92,000 tons and 144 planes For the  Illustrious versus 79600 and 400 planes for the Yorktown, granted there were not 4 Yorkies, but that's beside the point, you could do the job better with the three that did exist. 300 planes is an actual decent size strike force, capable of taking on land-based planes. 

This does not bother to take the Essex class into the comparison, because it was so much better than anything the Brits produced, by such a wide margin, it's just silly to do. 

3 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Armoured decks make sense if you're expecting your carriers to get dogpiled by land based aircraft (which come in numbers way bigger than any carrier air wing, so if you squeeze as many AC as possible on board then they'll still outnumber you, and carry bigger bombs). The pacific is not the med, basically

 

 

A 500 lb bomb is a Very Bad Day for an unarmoured carrier (e.g. yorktown at the battle of the coral sea), whereas armoured carriers were surviving 2000 lb bombs regularly

You say that like the only place the RN operated was the Med.  They had a worldwide empire. 

With a bit of experience, the Yorky could have lived, and the US Navy changed A/C fuel handling on Carriers after the Coral Sea and Midway.  

US Carriers had an armored Deck below the flight deck, and ships like the Enterprise took bomb hits and kept operating, while not suffering permanent, unrepairable, structural damage. The Idea that the Armored flight deck carriers were Armored enough to defeat a determined air attack is laughable.  

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

You know what, the ENTIRE Royal Navy was overrated in WWII.

If we wanted to talk overrated ships, the Armored Deck Carriers the Brits made were overrated. They were also nearly useless without American Airplanes. 

Sweet!

1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

Plus I don't think Squarehead realizes that this kind of mudrolling is fun for us.

Yeah, we all got to know each other over shit like this, it was good times.   Of course, some misinformed, repressed, guy from the UK isn't nearly as fun as trolling a wehraboo( I tried to get panzerphile, like a pedophile, to work by Sturgeon's wehraboo was a master work and caught on), but sometimes you have to work with what the good Lord gives you. 

I wonder how old that Turtle is. 

3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

And on that sorry note, you peabrained dim-wit, I'll leave you to stew in your own cretinous drivel. 

Slink off subject, but let me ask you this first,  do you act like an asshole on UK forums too, or are you afraid of the Troll Police?

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's it huh, that's the great @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks response.....You really are a total fucking moron. 

Do you need a tampon subject? If you stuffed it in your mouth, you might be able to come up with an impressive insult. 

8 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Far from it old son, TBH your opinions on anything other than the Sherman Tank don't hold a lot of value for me.

Cry to your troll police subject. 

1 hour ago, EnsignExpendable said:

IIRC the Firefly was never supposed to carry a .50 cal, the mount on the commander's cupola is for a rangefinder.

 

Here's a fun photo. I see the additional mudguards on this tank, but the suspension is VVSS. Is this an M4A1E9? This is the biggest resolution I have, sorry.

 

looks like an E9, without the duckbills, but since they were fragile, they are probably in one of the boxes on the back deck.

There are tons wrong with that image, I mean, HVSS was put on the M4A4 hull fairly regularly by the IDF.  But who puts the wrong mantlet on, and who either stretches a big hull hatch or rebuilds the whole front of the tank? I mean, you could probably but the front of an M4A3 large hatch hull and weld it on an M4A4 hull, but why?

Where is this thing anyway?

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Get back under your fucking bridge.

Truth hurts huh?