Author Topic: Battleships (Read 3260 times)

DiabloTX · « **Reply #30 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:16:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Serenity
I dont believe it should be added (Not 63 SPECIFICALLY) Because the anti-air action it saw was still limited comparitively. If you go down to the vessel in fact, tour guides, displays, and historical films on the ship itself make a point of mentioning that the "Mighty Mo was commisioned too late to take part in any real combat actions, rather proving itself post-war in the gulf conflicts".

Again, none of the Iowa's saw any surface engagements but that wasn't due to them being commissioned too late but by the IJN's refusal to sortie any BB's against American BB's. Hell, the New Jersy and the Iowa both could have faced the Yamato at Leyte Gulf had Halsey not taken the northern bait.

Commissioning of Iowa's:
Iowa Commissioned: 22 February 1943
New Jersey Commissioned: 23 May 1943
Missouri Commissioned: 11 June 1944
Wisconsin Commissioned: 16 April 1944

So as you can see the Iowa's weren't too late to see some action, they just didn't due to situational constraints and one admiral's bad decision. As far as I am concerned I am fully satisfied given HTC's time in combat dictum that the Iowa's are within this scope.

Nilsen · « **Reply #31 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:18:14 AM »

Yes a design flaw, but the HIT was still a lucky one

Pannono · « **Reply #32 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:47:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
...AND how, with one torpedo mind you, a biplane managed to end the hunt and bring the end of this 'excellent' battleship....

The Yamato was the Japanese version of that. Large, powerful, robust, but sorely lacking in updated firecontrol, a thorough anti-aircraft suite...

Bismarck got hit in the rudder by a torp and it jammed it so it could only turn back to the brits.

do u really think the yamato lacked in AA defense? look at this

HIJMS YAMATO SECONDARY ARMAMENT
6 × 15.5 cm [155mm] (6.1 inch) (2×3)
24 × 12.7 cm [127mm] {5 inch} (12×2)
162 × 25 mm AA (52 x 3, 6×1)
4 × 13 mm AA (2×2)
(n turrets with n guns each) [# of turrets x # of guns on each]

compare that to the USS Iowa
USS IOWA (BB-61) SECONDARY ARMAMENT
20 5 in (127 mm) 38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 40 mm 56 cal. anti-aircraft guns (Yamato has 162 25mm and 6 155mm, Iowa has 80 40mm)
49 20 mm 70 cal. anti-aircraft guns

DiabloTX · « **Reply #33 on:** June 28, 2007, 02:53:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pannono
Bismarck got hit in the rudder by a torp and it jammed it so it could only turn back to the brits.

do u really think the yamato lacked in AA defense? look at this

HIJMS YAMATO SECONDARY ARMAMENT
6 × 15.5 cm [155mm] (6.1 inch) (2×3)
24 × 12.7 cm [127mm] {5 inch} (12×2)
162 × 25 mm AA (52 x 3, 6×1)
4 × 13 mm AA (2×2)
(n turrets with n guns each) [# of turrets x # of guns on each]

compare that to the USS Iowa
USS IOWA (BB-61) SECONDARY ARMAMENT
20 5 in (127 mm) 38 cal. Mark 12 guns
80 40 mm 56 cal. anti-aircraft guns (Yamato has 162 25mm and 6 155mm, Iowa has 80 40mm)
49 20 mm 70 cal. anti-aircraft guns

Yes I know what happened to the Bismarck. It still doesn't change the fact that, in essence, the Bismarck was crippled by 1 14" shell and 1 torpedo. Hardly the stuff of 'excellent battleship' criteria.

As for the AA suit yes, the Yamato's was insuffecient until LATE in the war and even then it's AA coordination was woefully lacking. You can't just go by number of guns, you have to look at the entire suit; gun type, numbers and coordination of gunfire. The 6" secondaries of the Yamato's were hardly AA capable and the 5" guns of the Iowa's were dual purpose, surface and anti-aircraft. But, if you want a more detail analysis of the secondary armaments of the main BB's of WWII you should look at this: Assessment of secondary armament of WWII BB's.

Pannono · « **Reply #34 on:** June 28, 2007, 02:55:37 PM »

it wasnt crippled, it could have continued its mission while leaking oil

what if they did not try to turn to evade torp
what if they launched their planes
what if they fired at Hood and Prince of Wales sooner

so many "what ifs"

if Bismarck wasnt hit by Prince of Wales, brits might have lost Battle of Britain because it would be sittin out there rapin the supply convoys

Denholm · « **Reply #35 on:** June 28, 2007, 05:16:20 PM »

I suppose to divert this topic we can all agree that the only reason the Bismark sunk was because the crew scuttled the ship.

WMDnow · « **Reply #36 on:** June 28, 2007, 06:31:38 PM »

Hijacked topic?

Meatwad · « **Reply #37 on:** June 28, 2007, 06:36:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WMDnow

Battleship would be like the ones we have now.
(8000lb to kill)

We have cruisers, not BB's in game.

Oh lawdy lawd, please let summer be over soon. Im tired of these summer squeakers being retarded. (Apr+ registered)

Rino · « **Reply #38 on:** June 28, 2007, 07:44:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Serenity
Exactly. No surface engagements means no BB 63

Using your logic there should be no aircraft in AH2..no surface
engagements. You rarely see two aircraft taxiing toward each other in
mortal combat

Widewing · « **Reply #39 on:** June 28, 2007, 08:05:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
I suppose to divert this topic we can all agree that the only reason the Bismark sunk was because the crew scuttled the ship.

Whether or not Bismarck was scuttled isn't relevant. She was a burned-out hulk, dead in the water and doomed... As to whether Brit torpedoes sank her or if it was a scuttling charge, she was already destroyed.

My regards,

Widewing

DiabloTX · « **Reply #40 on:** June 28, 2007, 08:18:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pannono
it wasnt crippled, it could have continued its mission while leaking oil

The loss of the forward fuel bunker and the flooding of 2,000 tons of water into her fo'c'sle limited her speed to 20 knots to conserve fuel and a huge fuel oil slick trailing behind her pointing directly at her giving her position away...and she wasn't crippled. Rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhh hhhhht.

There are no 'what if's' when a single 14" shell hit forces you to port for repairs and in that return to port a single torpedo seals your doom.

WMDnow · « **Reply #41 on:** June 28, 2007, 09:24:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meatwad
We have cruisers, not BB's in game.

Oh lawdy lawd, please let summer be over soon. Im tired of these summer squeakers being retarded. (Apr+ registered)

How the hell am I supposed to know that? I have been playing AH for 6 months, stfu.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #42 on:** June 28, 2007, 09:46:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WMDnow
How the hell am I supposed to know that? I have been playing AH for 6 months, stfu.

LOLZ, yeah meatwad STFU n00b!1!!1!!!eleventyone!1!!!!!

Meatwad · « **Reply #43 on:** June 28, 2007, 10:51:31 PM »

I need to start throwing my catches on the shore to rot instead of releasing them back into the wild. They seem to be reproducing too quickly

Pannono · « **Reply #44 on:** June 29, 2007, 12:13:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
The loss of the forward fuel bunker and the flooding of 2,000 tons of water into her fo'c'sle limited her speed to 20 knots to conserve fuel and a huge fuel oil slick trailing behind her pointing directly at her giving her position away...and she wasn't crippled. Rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhh hhhhht.

There are no 'what if's' when a single 14" shell hit forces you to port for repairs and in that return to port a single torpedo seals your doom.

They could have still sat out there rapin the transports waitin for a repair ship

FYI, it was hit by 3 shells, and the torp hit the UNARMORED rudder, which jammed it 12.5 degrees. If they hadn't tried to turn to evade it, they might have got within range of Luftwaffe air support in France before the Brits got within range. The torps weren't even scratching the paint on the main armor.