 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
most questions still had answers greater than zylka. thus, everyone is not a mindless zylka-puppet yet. however, i would like to see him try to come up with a list of questions lol
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
remember what i said about cruft back when we had the whole chatroom pub quiz? i don't but i thought maybe you did and it might have some relevance to the "ban zylka" thing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Great! The Bismarck is disadvantaged by being compared to the situation two years after it was sunk. Of course it could never have been modified to keep up with the pace.
But if we had that rule then the Queen Elizabeth's would be judged on their WWI outfits. |
Hey, tough titties. We're comparing the ships as they were, not as they might have been. If we can allow you to assume the Bismarck would have been fitted with better radar, why not allow us to assume the same for the Iowa-class?
Besides, by 1944 German resources were so low that I doubt she would have had such a refit. They couldn't even finish their sole fleet carrier that was in production.
And this is only ONE of the Bismarck's disadvantages. She still has to contend with being slower, less maneuverable, much less armored and having less range.
Tell, me if you're given a choice between being on either of the two ships in a fight to the death, and you'll go down if you're on the loser, would you honestly choose the Bismarck over an Iowa-class? I would have to think you're suicidal if you said yes. Me, I'll happily stay on the ship that can fire accurately on the other without being within in the other ship's firing range. Duh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kassiopeia
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
IIRC that was your same opinion before you changed to the jeapordy-style pub quiz |
Perhaps, but the difference is of a, well, different kind. We aren't going to rework the entire system from scratch. We were trying to fix something that wasn't broken (we were switching to an entirely different style of game altogether!), whereas here we definitely have something that is, or is going to be, broken.
quote:
only thing that would be fair would probably be the quiz holder. Then he'd turn into a referee not unlike those in hockey, basketball or football who always have to make "judgement" calls. |
Yeah. Like we had in the version of the pub quiz we didn't complain about, mrmitchell. A permanent stance to avoid complication is all good and well, but there has to be some. Besides, the pub quiz and IWS are so different competitions anyway that trying to recycle your arguments from before is quite silly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Oh BOO HOO I think we should also ban The Britney and Avril Lavigne! POPULARITY SUCKS!!! It must also suck placing 19th, 31st, and 34th! See ya from the top 5 again next time, menstrual boy!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
It's like banning "Banana" from polls or "bread" from our cupboards, or "vagina" from sex
You really want that??? DO YOU?!?!?!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
What a weaird threadjack abot BB's.
Was the BIsmarck the fastest, or the most heavily armored, or best armed BB ever? NO, it was a great 1930's design, but later designs were superior. How the Bismarck would have done against a ship 4 years younger is not a very interesitng question.
BUt Pang's arguement against the Bismarck is silly. For a ship in 1941, the Bismarck was the best BB floating, and it showed itself to be a very respectful ship in its two sip to ship engagements. As for the Tirpitz, it never went out to sea cause the Germans were afraid to use it: not becuase it was in any way deficient. |
hi ,
no it was not , the ship was underfunded , poorly trained crew and officers , not build the way it was intended , the left out this and that , etc , .....
see the link on the other page , .....
the us had battle cruisers and "second rate" bb ( they named it like that ) that where by far more superior then the tirpitz class , ......
the geramns where not afraid to use the tirpitz , they had neither the experience or now how to sail with it , and some people in the german hq arrived to the conclusion it was worth zip , thats why they stowed far away from everything , ......
it did sail a couple times against convoys , some wacko's wanted to use it to shore bomb moermansk , .......
anyway , even if you use a ship like that , that aint all , you need support ships , cruisers for reckon , fire control , etc , ..... and those things the germans did not have , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
How about shut the f*ck up and learn how to play the game before coming back with complaints?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Hey, tough titties. We're comparing the ships as they were, not as they might have been. If we can allow you to assume the Bismarck would have been fitted with better radar, why not allow us to assume the same for the Iowa-class? |
The point is that such radars only became an issue post 1943. Presumably we are comparing the ships themselves here. Who is to say that the Bismarck would not have been modified if it had survived and if the Germans had seen a military use in doing so. We aren't talking about a major refit here, like the one given the Queen Elizabeth's after WW1; we are talking about minor changes which may well have happened.
quote:
Besides, by 1944 German resources were so low that I doubt she would have had such a refit. They couldn't even finish their sole fleet carrier that was in production. |
That is true. I don't think there would have been good military reasons for a refit either.
quote:
And this is only ONE of the Bismarck's disadvantages. She still has to contend with being slower, less maneuverable, much less armored and having less range. |
Again, I've said I reject such comparisons as being incomplete. Before the Battle of Jutland the Royal Navy was confident in the superiority of its ships. On paper they were superior. However, the Germans proved they had superior ships in that battle, even though they lost. Merely giving the thickness of armour plating isn't good enough since the disposition and quality of such plating has much to do with the battleworthiness of the ship. Similarly merely giving the speed of a ship is no good since maneuverability issues are just as important.
It was basically the same story in the Denmark Straits. One German capital ship accompanied by a heavy cruiser managed to beat off two of the Royal Navy's most powerful heavy ships. That battle is essentially Jutland in miniature in many respects.
First - the British lost a battlecruiser through poor design (it was a lucky hit one might say, but then look at the lucky hits which took out the Queen Mary, Indefatigable, and Invincible at Jutland - there is no reason to think that the Hood would not have blown up eventually had the battle proceeded longer).
Second - the German gunnery was more accurate and more devastating - just like at Jutland.
Third - things went wrong on the new British ship the POW. The Bismarck operated cleanly and efficiently.
That's one German heavy ship against two British heavy ships and the German ship won easily. The Prinz Eugen doesn't really come into it because she really didn't have the firepower to severely damage the British ships (despite the ridiculous rumour that the Prinz Eugen really sank the Hood).
Is there any proven data of how well an Iowa class ship holds up under heavy fire? No. In the case of the Bismarck there is - the Brits couldn't sink her and she was scuttled, which shows what a well made ship she was. It's design that wins battles, not statistics.
quote:
Tell, me if you're given a choice between being on either of the two ships in a fight to the death, and you'll go down if you're on the loser, would you honestly choose the Bismarck over an Iowa-class? I would have to think you're suicidal if you said yes. Me, I'll happily stay on the ship that can fire accurately on the other without being within in the other ship's firing range. Duh. |
I'd go for the Bismarck. Better crew for a start (and yes, a ship needs a crew). I don't think the Iowa's long range fire was all it was cracked up to be. For example:
quote:
We have compelling proof from USN sources that there was a serious problem in the US range charts with both the 16”/45 and 16”/50 guns, and that the results were overshoot errors in excess of 1,000 yards. This problem persisted into 1945, and it was shown to be an important concern by a series of range shoots that were done in 1944/45 to quantify the deviations. We know a faulty temperature assessment charge for the propellant was partially responsible for this problem, but other concerns relate to possibly faulty wear tables and “wobble” effects caused by the 2,700 pound shell’s center of gravity. Indeed, the 2,700 pound shells flight characteristics were not as good as its earlier cousin’s (center of gravity was less ideal for stabilization), and that is why the lighter shells were preferred in target shoots. These latter issues demand more research at present, but there is no doubt about the assessment error. Indeed, there is textual proof that the accuracy problems were so severe that new cams had to be made for the FC computers, although these were not fitted until after the war was over. |
Look we can argue this until the cows come home. My argument is based on the facts that statistics aren't much help when it comes to a real battle. The Bismarck proved itself to be an effective ship in what should have been a one sided battle. To my knowledge no Iowa class ship was similarly tested against quality opposition. The Bismarck fought against the overall best navy in the world. You can't say the same about the US Navy.
At least I hope you are no longer convinced that the Bismarck was shown to be poor by her impaired performance in the final battle with Rodney and KGV. I think the material posted previously puts that to rest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
GRAF ZEPPELIN
(Deutsche Werke,Kiel, Dec. 8, 1938)
PETER STRASSER
(Germania,Kiel, building)
Both laid down in 1936, under the Programme for that year.)
Displacement: 19,250 tons
Length: 820.3 ft
Beam: 88.5 ft
Draught: 18.3 ft (mean)
Aircraft: 40
Guns:
16 - 5.9 inch
10 - 4.1 inch AA
22 - 37 mm AA
Machinery: Geared turbines
Speed: 32 kts
Armour: Casemates for 5.9 inch guns. No bulges.
GRAF ZEPPELIN
GRAF ZEPPELIN
Notes: Flight deck reported to measure 790x88.5 feet.Sides appear to be for two-thirds of length amidships, and to a lesser extent as bow, which is of bulbous form.Will have island superstructure on starboard side.One of these aircraft carriers was photographed from the air, fitting out alongside a quay in the Naval Dockyard at Kiel,in July,1940,whence she is believed to have proceeded to Gdynia. P. Strasser does not appear to have been completed.
Notes: The construction of Peter Strasser was stopped, the half completed ship was broken down. The Graf Zeppelin left shipyard, but its armament and engines never where completed, left the shipyard in dec. 1938. its construktion displacement was 27 650 ts ist estimated max. weight 33 550 ts. It should have carried 42 planes (30 Ju-87D divebombers and 12 Me-109T fighters). To the end of the war everything usefull was removed for other projects. The hull was removed to later Poland to bring it out of range of allied airraids. In 1945 it was sunk by german troops near Stettin in the mouth of the river Oder. In 1946 it was elevated by the russians an send to St. Pererburg (then Leningrad) in 1947. The informations of its loss in sea are unclear, some say it was hit by mine, others it was sunk by torpedo, some think damges of the outer sealings causes its sinking. Perhaps it was another time elevated an later dismantled in St. Petersburg.
hi ,
and who was it saying again that germany never even thought about a carrier before or during ww II , ..... 
have a nice day
 Attachment: graf2.gif
This has been downloaded 60 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
You are a sad individual. I must recommend any of many available pro-active self esteem exercises.
-Doc
Last edited by Zylka on 21-07-2003 at 02:15
|
|
| |
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 09:01
)
|
