RE: THE THREAD!!!

RE: THE THREAD!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room

Message

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Chase. (1996-2008) R.I.P. [image]local://upfiles/452/5573FABFEE414922AD1CDB377B2C2A1E.jpg[/image] sorry to hear that nik i never knew you had any other dog other than the crazy pit.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:09:56 PM)
morning everyone.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:57:51 PM)
hmmm it seems kinda dead.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:58:15 PM)
and i'm the only one looking at the thread.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:58:30 PM)
I wonder if it would be possible for me to.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:58:51 PM)
faber in the middle of the day.

Mike Solli -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:58:54 PM)
[:-]

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:59:05 PM)
damn rodents

Mike Solli -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 4:59:15 PM)
[:D]

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:04:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom sorry to hear that nik i never knew you had any other dog other than the crazy pit. GF unit had Chase from before we got together but over the years I came to love him as much as my prior dog. He was a good soul. The Yellow one came after we became a unit...rescued along with his surviving litter mates stuffed in a garbage bag and left to die along the side of the road. Chase was the big brother and mentor for Spike. We later rescued a navy man's parents from the pitbull puppy of doom on the idea that she would make a good replacement companion for the Yellow. We should have known we were in for it given how quickly they shooed us out of the door, big smiles of relief on their faces. Chennelle drives GF unit nutz but at least admits that she has been good for Spike. + they gang up on the stupid cat which is a good thing. The three musketeers......now two. Death sucks. I'm not feeling too productive today. I can't allow myself to be weak.....cuz GF unit is a mess right now. Vallium helps....a little. [:(] [image]local://upfiles/452/4A27275102334C099FAFCB755FE29464.jpg[/image]

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:06:51 PM)
so as an interesting side not which side had the best first generation dreadnoughts at the start of WW1. I would say the austrian design was the best but the suffered. from no understanding that there should be no water tight door below the water line because salors are stupid and lazy and will leave them open for convenience. i would say the british and the germans had the problem of those god awful waist turrets that just hurt the ships seakeeping and were not very useful in combat. the americans had good ships with just centerline turrets but they were coal fired as were the germans. british were oil fired but their optics were bad and there desire for the fastest rate of fire to make up for this is the reason they cut corners and why the bcs blew up at jutland. Does anyone know how good the american optics were. yeah i'm just ranting. i think in the end the extra armor and the better optics give the prize to the germans. sorry i don't know enough about the italian or french designs to even begin to guess. also then there were the japnesse who had good ships but were any of their bbs launched by the start of ww1. i know the kongos were lauched and excelent ships but not sure if the bbs were launched. so i think i will say the germans.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom sorry to hear that nik i never knew you had any other dog other than the crazy pit. GF unit had Chase from before we got together but over the years I came to love him as much as my prior dog. He was a good soul. The Yellow one came after we became a unit...rescued along with his surviving litter mates stuffed in a garbage bag and left to die along the side of the road. Chase was the big brother and mentor for Spike. We later rescued a navy man's parents from the pitbull puppy of doom on the idea that she would make a good replacement companion for the Yellow. We should have known we were in for it given how quickly they shooed us out of the door, big smiles of relief on their faces. Chennelle drives GF unit nutz but at least admits that she has been good for Spike. + they gang up on the stupid cat which is a good thing. The three musketeers......now two. Death sucks. I'm not feeling too productive today. I can't allow myself to be weak.....cuz GF unit is a mess right now. Vallium helps....a little. [:(] [image]local://upfiles/452/4A27275102334C099FAFCB755FE29464.jpg[/image] yeah unfortunately no matter how many dogs you lose over the years it never gets any easier. they are just so much a part of your family(which is why i prefer them to cats). i will raise my glass to chase tonight.

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:38:34 PM)
i guess you must include the 2nd generation Dreadnoughts if 'start of WWI' is included as that would encompass the "Super-Dreadnoughts" of the Orion, KGV and Iron Duke class battleships. Of course any "best" discussion is and will be largely subjective based on personal preference of attributes. Myself, I would side with the UK super-Dreads as the arguable best representative on the eve of the QE class battleships primarily due to their heavy firepower coupled with decent (if a tad shallow) armor protection and excellent MH allowing them to shoot well. Under Jellicoe's relentless tutilage, these units along with the GF Battlesquadrons became a fearsome force of impressive gunnery. They did have weak points, the biggest design weakpoint being somewhat weak underwater protection and for the ID class....a poorly arranged secondary battery though the upgrade to 6in IMO was a plus. The UK's biggest weakness of course was outside the designs themselves. Their impressive and heavy firepower was partially negated by faulty shells that often failed to penetrate before exploding and their cordite proved highly flamable which direclty led to the loss of three BC's at Jutland. By late war much of these deficiencies had been corrected however and the ships acheived their full potential in destructive firepower by 1918 using Greenboy shells. The Germans are the other big contenders. They had the advantage of designing warships that were meant to fight a North Sea battle so they could devote more displacement for protection..assisted as well by the use of small tube boilering. Hands down they had the best protection in terms of belt armor (coverage as well as thickness) Underwater protection was very good and the ships beamy. The only flaw there being that the extensive compartmentalization allowed by the small tube boilering was partially negated by pierced bulkheads for WT hatches and pipings. THeir torpedo flats also were a big weakpoint in the underwater scheme as Seydlitz found out. (nearly sinking but for a good bit of luck and a determined crew) With a far more stable cordite supply and good magazine arrangement...these ships could take alot of punishment. In the balance though the choice to stick with smaller caliber guns negated much of these passive advantages....the Germans were fortunate that the shells they were struck with often burst before or during penetration as the 13.5 and 15inch shells had the potential power to pierce their heavy armor...esp the turrets which had equivilent protection to the British warships. Viribus Unitis was an innovative design which made better use of limited displacement thx to the employment of tripple turrets in what would become the "classic" arrangement first debuted by the USS Michigan. I could'nt rate them best however given their very weak deck armor and very poor underwater protection. For a Med engagement against their most likely adversary....the Italians....i think they would have given a good account of themselves. The French were behind the curve due to long build times. Courbet tried to do too much on too little displacement which hampered their seakeeping even in the Med. Province class was a small improvement. The US produced a good contender with the New York class.

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:40:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom yeah unfortunately no matter how many dogs you lose over the years it never gets any easier. they are just so much a part of your family(which is why i prefer them to cats). i will raise my glass to chase tonight. I think that was part of why i never got another dog after my companion of 13 years passed. Living alone was the biggest factor (it wouldn't have been fair) but also....counter-productive as it is....i just didn't want to face such pain again when you have to say goodbye.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:53:51 PM)
Yeah had forgot that the iron dukes were ready by the start of ww1. the british also had the problem on not having as good of sights as the germans hence they needed to try and throw up way more shells to make up for this if the germans had coupled there great optics with big calibure guns earlier it would have made jutland far more interesting. obviously jellicoe was brilliant he knew all of the british weaknesses and would never let his ships get in situations where they would be exposed(beatty could of taken a lesson here). I was simply saying the austrian design was innovative and could have been great but they screwed up some of the details. I love the new york class but didn't bring them up because obviously with uss texas being my favorite ship ever i am biused My other though is did the germans make a mistake by leaving their fleet out of most of the war. I know people pan them for this but i doubt they could of ever broken the blockade in any reasonable matter as even if the germans had marginaly defeated the british the brits could of simply moved the blockade further out to sea where the germans could not have ventured. but if the german fleet had ben defeated it would of opened up the entire german coast for invasion. i just don't see where the rewards would of justified the risk.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom yeah unfortunately no matter how many dogs you lose over the years it never gets any easier. they are just so much a part of your family(which is why i prefer them to cats). i will raise my glass to chase tonight. I think that was part of why i never got another dog after my companion of 13 years passed. Living alone was the biggest factor (it wouldn't have been fair) but also....counter-productive as it is....i just didn't want to face such pain again when you have to say goodbye. yeah.

Mike Solli -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:57:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom yeah unfortunately no matter how many dogs you lose over the years it never gets any easier. they are just so much a part of your family(which is why i prefer them to cats). i will raise my glass to chase tonight. I think that was part of why i never got another dog after my companion of 13 years passed. Living alone was the biggest factor (it wouldn't have been fair) but also....counter-productive as it is....i just didn't want to face such pain again when you have to say goodbye. I agree Nik. My wife and I agreed that we're not going to get any more animals. We'll see if she can live up to that however. Our oldest cat has cancer, but still is doing well.

VSWG -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 5:59:40 PM)
Tithe... [&o] Sorry for your loss, Nik. [:(]

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 6:03:25 PM)
The issue of the optics between the Germans and British is somewhat muddled....at least i always saw it that way. Some sources conflict. The gist i pulled from it was that in certain conditions (mainly poor vis), the German stereoscopic scopes operated better while in clear weather the British ones worked fine. The UK also had developed Director firing which had a huge impact on accuracy. But as mentioned, the ice factor was the men in charge. Jellicoe drilled his squadrons to perfection and it showed at Jutland....they came very close to breaking up the German line as the hits started coming quickly and only Scheer's battle turn away saved them. The firing of the German BB's in comparison seemed poor. On the opposite coin, Beatty who was more Style than substance (IMO) failed to adequately drill his units and his BC's shot very poorly at Dogger Bank and Jutland (Exception: Hood's 3rd BCS, under Jellicoe's tutilage...shot excellently and his flagship is cited as inflicting the fatal damage on Lutzow) Hipper....again opposite of Scheer had practiced his crews and they in turn were excellent shooters which showed at Jutland. Yes....VU class was innovative in the same way that Michigan was. However like Michigan the design was too limited to realize the full potential of the efficient arrangement of the main armament. (Michigan for example was hindered by being restricted to near PreDreadnought dimensions and was a poor seaboat....the two ships remained attached to pre_D squadrons as a result) I have a poor opinion in general of the "Fleet in Being" concept and the Austrians were even more guilty of it than the Germans. The Aus Admiral was famous for being quoted as saying "sometimes the best course is to do nothing"......but the problem there is that in the end...."nothing" gets you nowhere and all the money you spent ends up being wasted. The Germans partially created their own trap by designing a fleet for a NS battle which limited their utility and a battle plan that fell apart because of one primary weakness....."what if the British did not oblingingly come out close to our shores?" Admitedly geography also hindered them making blockade easier to do.

Mike Solli -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 6:08:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus I have a poor opinion in general of the "Fleet in Being" concept and the Austrians were even more guilty of it than the Germans. The Aus Admiral was famous for being quoted as saying "sometimes the best course is to do nothing"......but the problem there is that in the end...."nothing" gets you nowhere and all the money you spent ends up being wasted. Nik, to some extent, I think it's a valid tactic, especially when you have the smaller fleet. There comes a time, however where you have to force the issue. If you wait too long, the enemy fleet will so outnumber you that the concept becomes meaningless.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 6:59:35 PM)
Valid tactic maybe. It still represents an immense drain on manpower and resources for little net result. Admittedly, hindsight makes this a much easier argument. By adopting a distant blockade, the British pulled the rug from under the High Seas Fleet's pre-war plans, which should have been more effective against a close in blockade. Why the High Seas Fleet staff just assumed that a close in blockade would happen is another subject entirely.

JWE -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:12:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Nik, to some extent, I think it's a valid tactic, especially when you have the smaller fleet. There comes a time, however where you have to force the issue. If you wait too long, the enemy fleet will so outnumber you that the concept becomes meaningless. I sorta agree Mike, but I�m not a big fan of �fleets in being� either. I think Mahan�s concept was very useful geopolitically, and in periods of tension. In actual war conditions it gives an opponent more opportunities than might be expected. If the �fleet in being� is at home, it needs only be watched and awaited. This leaves the �SLOCs� open and available at �moderate� risk. An FIB at home and at anchor poses a threat, yes, but presents a much more �graspable� solution to an opposing commander. Just my humble �pinion.

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:18:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Nik, to some extent, I think it's a valid tactic, especially when you have the smaller fleet. There comes a time, however where you have to force the issue. If you wait too long, the enemy fleet will so outnumber you that the concept becomes meaningless. exactly. Charging out with all guns blaring with no plan is just as bad.....but on the flip side....no nation ever won a sea war embracing the FiB concept to the hilt. The UK had the right idea, but even with the stronger fleet they still took chances and swept....patrolled, and dispatched elements to other theaters with good aggression. It paid off in the end while that of the HSF.....their crew morale plumetted until mutiny ensued.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:18:47 PM)
It's been a while since I read Mahan but I think he gave due weight to the effects geography had on the fleets-in-being concept. In other words, it would work better for France than it would for Germany. France doesn't have its bottle corked by GB, Germany does.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:20:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus The issue of the optics between the Germans and British is somewhat muddled....at least i always saw it that way. Some sources conflict. The gist i pulled from it was that in certain conditions (mainly poor vis), the German stereoscopic scopes operated better while in clear weather the British ones worked fine. The UK also had developed Director firing which had a huge impact on accuracy. But as mentioned, the ice factor was the men in charge. Jellicoe drilled his squadrons to perfection and it showed at Jutland....they came very close to breaking up the German line as the hits started coming quickly and only Scheer's battle turn away saved them. The firing of the German BB's in comparison seemed poor. On the opposite coin, Beatty who was more Style than substance (IMO) failed to adequately drill his units and his BC's shot very poorly at Dogger Bank and Jutland (Exception: Hood's 3rd BCS, under Jellicoe's tutilage...shot excellently and his flagship is cited as inflicting the fatal damage on Lutzow) Hipper....again opposite of Scheer had practiced his crews and they in turn were excellent shooters which showed at Jutland. Yes....VU class was innovative in the same way that Michigan was. However like Michigan the design was too limited to realize the full potential of the efficient arrangement of the main armament. (Michigan for example was hindered by being restricted to near PreDreadnought dimensions and was a poor seaboat....the two ships remained attached to pre_D squadrons as a result) I have a poor opinion in general of the "Fleet in Being" concept and the Austrians were even more guilty of it than the Germans. The Aus Admiral was famous for being quoted as saying "sometimes the best course is to do nothing"......but the problem there is that in the end...."nothing" gets you nowhere and all the money you spent ends up being wasted. The Germans partially created their own trap by designing a fleet for a NS battle which limited their utility and a battle plan that fell apart because of one primary weakness....."what if the British did not oblingingly come out close to our shores?" Admitedly geography also hindered them making blockade easier to do. Austrians used their fleet quite extensively. the probolem was that when the austrians were equal if not maybe having an advantage on the allies in 1914 and early 1915 they didn't use their bbs like they should of. but the austrian fleet was far more active than the germans. how many time did they bombard the italian coast and attack the barge. problem was they should have agressivly used their fleet in 1914 and early 15. i think the austrians had far less to lose by losing their fleet than the germans did. and they should of come out to play on the opening day of the ware and combined with the german med squadron and gone after the french and british fleets.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:24:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk Valid tactic maybe. It still represents an immense drain on manpower and resources for little net result. Admittedly, hindsight makes this a much easier argument. By adopting a distant blockade, the British pulled the rug from under the High Seas Fleet's pre-war plans, which should have been more effective against a close in blockade. Why the High Seas Fleet staff just assumed that a close in blockade would happen is another subject entirely. problem was once they did that that even if the germans had won a decisive battle the british could of just moved there blockade out of german range. the thing that made the germans battleships so good also meant that they couldn't win the war at sea when the tactics were changed on them

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:26:36 PM)
bombardments don't do much in the end but annoy. Its always easier of course to employ the smaller more expendible units in limited ops but they also end up doing little most of the time. They should have sought an engagement of some kind but of course that great bugaboo of BB's got in the way.....Capital ships built to win battles and turn tides of war, but in the end too valuable to risk. Had Souchon linked up, that might have opened some poss', but he had little faith that the AH navy would do anything of worth (and he was right). Another option would be to try to link up with the Turks in the Dardenelles but that was politically unfeasible....that would have left the AH coastline "open" though i'm not sure what the Italians would have done, they had their hands full as it was and amphibious ops were still in their infancy.

bobogoboom -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:35:04 PM)
i'm glad i created a rousing thread discussion.[:D]

Nikademus -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:38:51 PM)
its a nice distraction this morning. I'm still not motivated to getting much work done [:(]

Mike Solli -> RE: THE THREAD!!! (7/24/2008 7:41:39 PM)
Yeah, Bobo. Now you guys got me interested in Jutland. I guess I can fire up WPO if no turn is in my inbox tonight. [:D]

Page: << < prev 114 115 [116] 117 118 next > >>

1.296875