 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
correction at the first battle of jutland , at the second they where send to swim with the fish , indefinatly |
What are you talking about?
At the Battle of Jutland (the only one people care about) in 1916 the Grand Fleet completely outmaneuverd the High Seas Fleet and poured massed gunfire on them, crossing their "T" twice.
Nevertheless, the British lost the Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible and numerous other smaller ships. The Germans lost the Lutzow and a handful of others including the Pommern which was a pre-dreadnought design. Severely battered German ships refused to sink, including, famously, the Seydlitz.
The acknowledged reasons were that the British ships and materiel were of poorer design.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Because only one of us is a moron (hint - it ain't me).
The thruth?
Which one? There wasn't enough damage to sink her according to the last I heard.
No one disputes that she sank, panag.
Not in a sea battle against other heavy ships.
Shows how much you know then. |
hi ,
you really show what respect you have for yourself and others , ........
the thruth is that the bismarck was sinking before she got put out of her misery , .......
and as for the tirpitz , the chickens where so afraid to loose her since she had the same short comings as her sistership to put her out on sea , ......
she lost against a couple divers with midgets , ........ yeah , great ship , ...... so great they had to put a sand barrier under it after it was repaired with concrete in order for it to float , ...... 
yeah , great ship that sits on a bunch of sand , that aint a ship you know , ......
and before you start to trow without no reason what so ever things to other peoples head , ..... certain military us schools with great reputation have online fact databases , ..... and they really are not THAT hard to find , ........
bye
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
What are you talking about?
At the Battle of Jutland (the only one people care about) in 1916 the Grand Fleet completely outmaneuverd the High Seas Fleet and poured massed gunfire on them, crossing their "T" twice.
Nevertheless, the British lost the Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible and numerous other smaller ships. The Germans lost the Lutzow and a handful of others including the Pommern which was a pre-dreadnought design. Severely battered German ships refused to sink, including, famously, the Seydlitz.
The acknowledged reasons were that the British ships and materiel were of poorer design. |
learn before you post , .....
learn the truth before you insult people , .....
and maybe if you dont insult them , they can teach you how what where and when , when it comes to history and facts , .......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So instead of comparing the ships based on their numbers, what is there? Oh wait there's: |
A country which proved itself in ship to ship naval combat as able to design efficient warships versus one that did not.
That's why US ships from WWII can't be taken seriously. They never proved themselves in that style of combat - indeed I can't think of any US ship that did in a classical dreadnought-style engagement.
quote:
Agathon, you have to compare the ships based on the physical construction if you're going to talk about "greatest ever built." Why is it ridiculous to compare statistics like which ship had better armor, better design, were faster? Those are factors in how the ships will perform in combat! |
But they don't tell the whole story. That one ship has thicker armour than another doesn't matter a jot if it has other design flaws. People thought the Hood was the bees-knees and we all know what happened to her.
quote:
Ship-to-ship, Bismarck got squashed. She was great at short-range battles, like were fought in WWI. Long range, she was weak. |
Based on what?
quote:
Since Iowa-class ships excel in long-range combat, Bismarck would be toast, and likely wouldn't be able to land a shot. |
quote:
None of which attests to how it would fare against Iowa-class ships, which could shoot at it before the Bismarck could shoot back, thanks to greater range. |
Wouldn't make any difference if they couldn't hit her.
quote:
So the Bismarck's inability to steer caused her expert gunnery crew to be inable to land any shots? |
Think about it. Is it easier to fire from a comparatively steady platform or one over which there is limited control. Add to that the fact that the Royal Navy came at her from all sides, she couldn't move and the crew knew they were all doomed and what do you have?
BTW - I found the website you copied this stuff from. So much for your knowledge - you plagiarist. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
A country which proved itself in ship to ship naval combat as able to design efficient warships versus one that did not.
That's why US ships from WWII can't be taken seriously. They never proved themselves in that style of combat - indeed I can't think of any US ship that did in a classical dreadnought-style engagement. |
Therein lies the problem for Bismarck. Dreadnaught-style engagements, for which she was designed, were fought at close ranges. The Iowa ships could fire accurately from a much greater distance. All the great gunners in the world won't help you when your opponent can you hit from a further distance than you can hit it. It's really easy, Aggie.
quote:
But they don't tell the whole story. That one ship has thicker armour than another doesn't matter a jot if it has other design flaws. People thought the Hood was the bees-knees and we all know what happened to her. |
In other words, your side is based totally on luck. Way to go!
And what design flaws in the Iowa-class have you mentioned? I've brought up plenty of design flaws in the Bismarck, not the least of which were her rudder, her armor, and her sensors. In what design area are Iowas worse than Bismarck? Until now, you've been relying on the crew!
Her design.
quote:
Wouldn't make any difference if they couldn't hit her.
|
Why wouldn't they be able to hit Bismarck? She was a wider target. The Iowas had longer-range guns that were more accurate and better sensors and radar. Bismarck couldn't just dodge shells like a fighter, Ags.
quote:
Think about it. Is it easier to fire from a comparatively steady platform or one over which there is limited control. Add to that the fact that the Royal Navy came at her from all sides, she couldn't move and the crew knew they were all doomed and what do you have? |
You still have to explain why your ubergunners couldn't hit anything. At least ONE shot. Come on admit it.
quote:
BTW - I found the website you copied this stuff from. So much for your knowledge - you plagiarist. |
Wtf? I quoted the material from the web site, so it's not like I claimed it as my own. Here, I'll quote you from a page dedicated to the Bismarck:
http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO_Bismarck_p3.htm
quote:
XII. Bismarck vs. Iowa
We are often asked how Bismarck or Tirpitz would fare against an Iowa-class battleship. Generally speaking, this question is easy to answer as follows:
"Not very well!"
The American Iowa-class battleships were armed with powerful, long-ranged 16-inch guns which fired a heavy 2,700-pound armor-piercing shell and benefited from a superior gunfire control system. Furthermore, the Iowas were capable of 33-35 knots maximum speed. Their higher speed and superior horizontal armor protection would have given the Iowas an immense tactical advantage in a long-range gunnery engagement. Their high speed would have granted the Americans choice of engagement and they would have been able to dictate the range at which to do battle. At long ranges, the American 16-inch guns could penetrate Bismarck virtually at will, while the German 380mm gun could only hope for combat system kills against the always vulnerable superstructure of any battleship. U.S. Navy doctrine in the period leading up to World War II was to attain great gun accuracy at long range, for that is where American admirals wanted American battleships to engage a potential foe. By 1944, with their clear advantage in radar technology and superior fire-control systems, the advantage in gunnery engagements would have been conferred even more markedly on the U.S. ships.
The German ships were admirably suited to a close range battle, such as might be expected in the pre-radar era in the North Sea. At close ranges, the German ships might have had a slight advantage over their American counterparts.
The side protective system of the U.S. ships was superior to that on the German warships, although both classes were equally vulnerable to the type of torpedo hits on the steering gear which doomed Bismarck.
Overall, although one can never predict the outcome of a one-on-one engagement with certitude, it is clear that the odds in any such a confrontation would have substantially favored the American ship.
|
Find me one naval expert who would favor the Bismarck, and I might consider you having an argument. But every expert analysis I've seen gives the Iowas the easy odds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Inability to steer should not prevent gunners from being able to target, Agathon. Notice how those big guns rotate independently of the ship. |
Don't be stupid. It doesn't matter that the guns could move, how is that going to be of any use when the ship is not stable due to damage? Imagine you are standing on the back of a pickup with a gun trying to hit things. Now imagine the pickup has two flats and can't steer properly.
Get it?
Of course you could stop the ship, but then it would be an absolute sitting duck. It was anyway, fire control in the Bismarck was out of action in no time at all as it was being attacked from all sides and couldn't maneuver.
quote:
The Iowas had better sensors and radar equipment than Bismarck. Considering the difficulties Bismarck had targeting, she would be in for a rough time against ships that have better targeting equipment and can fire from further away with better accuracy. |
I don't believe any serious author has suggested that the Bismarck's gunnery was anything less than excellent. That's certainly better than something you cribbed off some amateur enthusiast's web site. I don't put much stock in what he says - he thinks the Yamato would beat the Bismarck. That thing was a floating disaster waiting to happen.
quote:
And I don't put much stock on your hypotheticals relying on fanciful what-ifs that you imagine. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that Bismarck fared terribly in the battle with the KGV and Rodney, and blaming the rudder (which is still indicative of a design flaw) is a crutch, since she still should have been able to hit targets. |
Fine admiral you'd make. Being able to maneuver effectively is a sine qua non for effective naval combat. Moving slowly in a mildly erratic fashion over which you have no control is something else entirely. No ship could survive such a situation.
quote:
But her less-than-optimal armor design made her vital systems vulnerable, so she was crushed. Smashed. Pulverized. |
Crap. No serious author has suggested this. The Bismarck was pulverised because it could not maneuver and was surrounded by two modern undamaged battleships which could attack it in the manner most favourable to them. It's no surprise the Bismarck was pummelled. It's as if someone nailed your feet to the floor and stood behind you smacking the hell out of you, and then they claimed that you were a lousy fighter.
quote:
And the Bismarck got beaten badly in combat. Did that ever happen to an Iowa-class ship? Nope. |
Did an Iowa ever go up against a real ship from a real navy as opposed to the Japanese?
panag, you are a raving maniac. You can be the only Apolytoner on my ignore list.
Have a horrible day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
That was an oversized whale. |
How is that a disadvantage in a BB v. BB battle?  |
Let's be fair. I really have no idea how well the Yamato would have stood up in a true ship to ship battle. It had poor radar fire control at a time in the war when such things mattered a great deal (that's why slagging off the Bismarck for things that the Germans never really had the opportunity to fix annoys me).
Presumably the 18 inch guns of the Yamato would have been enough to flatten anything. I just can't get over my suspicion that such a whale would have performed poorly since it was so obviously made to be huge for huge's sake.
Anyway, I found some more stuff on Bismarck (interestingly it turns out that the Iowa class suffered from terrible inaccuracy at long ranges) which illustrate what I was trying to say before about why Bismarck didn't shoot well in the final battle (as you will see the opposite was the case):
quote:
During Bismarck's final battle it should be remembered that the ship was listing to port and being partially flooded would tend to wallow. She could only make about ten knots and at this speed her stabilisers might not have been very effective, also she could barely hold a course, whilst Rodney was unimpared and could manoeuvre so as to get the best tactical advantage, therefore being less exposed to accurate fire. She could manoeuvre defensively without compromising her gunnery, whilst Bismarck could only sit and take it.
Also Rodney was only engaging one ship. Bismarck was being fired upon by two heavy units simultaneously, to say nothing of the cruisers. This has to be taken into account and regardless of national temperament and crew training, incoming fire during a heavy naval engagement is disconcerting in the extreme, whoever you are.
During the final battle Schneider had to deal with a crippled ship. Bismarck would not hold a steady course and the wind and seas were rough. The bow kept swinging back and forth through about 80 degree's bearing. Schneider could not fire a bracketing group of salvoes because he could only bring Anton and Bruno to bear on his target. Lindemann tried to bring Ceaser and Dora to bear by means of prop stearing but the Bismarck would not hold the course so finally they decided it would be better to just let the ship drift and use only 4 guns. This meant that Schneider would have to confirm the range and bearing by test salvoes of four guns about 30 seconds apart. Bismarck got off his first salvo at 0849 some three minutes after the British had opened fire. The Baron reports that the first three salvoes were short(only by 180 meters by an observer on Rodney) , staddling, and over. It appeared it was the British turn to be lucky and the German turn to be unlucky. Observers on Rodney reported that Bismarcks shooting was actually outstanding with a series of "frightfully close near miss's". Rodney was just plain lucky |
Interesting stuff
|
|
| |
|
|
|
badams52
|
 |
near the magic kingdom
May 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Um - a message was conveyed to me that at least one Apolytoner would be very disappointed in such a ban.
If you don't want people answering "Zylka" then don't ask questions that invite it. He didn't win the fave female pornstar or any of the other reasonable questions. |
So I guess you're saying Q's 1, 4 and 7 weren't reasonable and no he didn't win the fav female pornstar Q, but he did get 6 too many votes...
And while I might like to have questions that don't invite Zylka answers, that my friend is not in my (or the other player's) hands, but in the winner of the previous round's. Case in point, you're most recent questions.
I thought most of the Q's didn't translate well to Zylka answers, esp. Q's 1, 4 (I still can't see Zylka playing with barbies), 6 and esp. 7, but that didn't stop the masses from going the Zylka route.
Seriously, if we have to rely on people making great questions, then we'll never see Zylka lower than Sava in the I'm with stupid contest. The fact that Zylka ended up 5th is proof enough as far as I'm concerned that the game will continue to degrade to the I'm with Zylka game.
I'm not saying we should "ban" the Zylka answer, but seems to me that something could be done to keep the spirit of the game intact. Something like if an answer given to a question is clearly outside of the realm of "acceptable" answers, then all who give that answer get 1/2 credit. I don't see any specific examples that this rule would have ended up hurting Zylka followers in IX, except maybe Q6. So maybe the Qs from IX while seemingly (to me anyway) didn't ask questions that invited Zylka answers, many of them came out that way. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2003 05:07
ACK! 
|