RE: Baddest Battleship (Full Version)

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



Message


Hornblower -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:23:46 AM)

This is going to turn into the Iowa vs. Yamato again isn't it? [:-]




JohnK -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:25:28 AM)

If Hood could have had a total rebuilding like the Queen Elizabeths it could have been a credible ship...it also was a poor design...but of course was a World War I-built ship.

A design has to be evaluated in terms of the technology, naval knowledge, and resources of the time; the Bismarck was a very poor design by that criteria.




mdiehl -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:26:01 AM)

quote:

The poor Hood ... doomed by design ... really ... the poor thing was a CL with BB guns stuck on top.


CL or CA?




JohnK -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:26:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

This is going to turn into the Iowa vs. Yamato again isn't it? [:-]


As sure as the sun rises in the morning :-)




Hipper -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:29:03 AM)

Doomed by the treasury more like
in the early 20's she was great combining the armour protection of a queen elizabeth class battleship with the speed of the fastest battlecruisers she was in fact the first fast battleship.

however in the 1940's she was a very old lady indeed and was long overdue for her refit, planned for 1939 - 1940 I believe.

however she had a huge influence on german and italian ship design criteria I can't remember which german "pocket battleship commander called her the terror of the german pre war fleet exercises but not bad for a 20 year old ship

besides she may still have had the legs on the Bizmark in 1941 [;)]

cheers




hithere -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:29:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

This is going to turn into the Iowa vs. Yamato again isn't it? [:-]


ofcourse not!! everyone knows that the Iowa was better!![:)] [;)] [:D] [:'(] [sm=00000002.gif] [sm=duel.gif] [sm=00000280.gif]




Mr.Frag -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:29:30 AM)

quote:

CL or CA?


Had they armored certain key areas better, I'd say CA, but I think the results speak for themselves. Too busy trying to make her fast to make her last.




Hornblower -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:46:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hithere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

This is going to turn into the Iowa vs. Yamato again isn't it? [:-]


ofcourse not!! everyone knows that the Iowa was better!![:)] [;)] [:D] [:'(] [sm=00000002.gif] [sm=duel.gif] [sm=00000280.gif]


Toss a little more gas on the fire why dont you [:D]




hithere -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:49:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

quote:

ORIGINAL: hithere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

This is going to turn into the Iowa vs. Yamato again isn't it? [:-]


ofcourse not!! everyone knows that the Iowa was better!![:)] [;)] [:D] [:'(] [sm=00000002.gif] [sm=duel.gif] [sm=00000280.gif]


Toss a little more gas on the fire why dont you [:D]




hehehehehe[sm=00000612.gif]




Nikademus -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 1:57:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Had they armored certain key areas better, I'd say CA, but I think the results speak for themselves. Too busy trying to make her fast to make her last.


Hood was no CA. She was just old. She was also too close.




Damien Thorn -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 2:10:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

This is going to turn into the Iowa vs. Yamato again isn't it? [:-]


No. We already had that "debate' and not a single opinion was changed. Rehashing it again would just be a waste of effort.




McNaughton -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 3:57:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Had they armored certain key areas better, I'd say CA, but I think the results speak for themselves. Too busy trying to make her fast to make her last.


Hood was no CA. She was just old. She was also too close.


Actually, she wasn't close enough. If the Hood could get in close, the Bismarks better deck armour wouldn't matter, and what would have mattered would be total volume of fire. Since the Bismark actually had a significant number of bad shells (the Hood was unlucky enough to be hit by a few of the good ones, the Prince of Wales was lucky to be hit by a lot of bad ones), and the British had loads of good shells, chances are that the Bismark superstructure (and its ability to fight) would have been wrecked due to volume of fire. Superstructure armour doesn't matter when you are being fired at point blank by 15" and 14" shells, so Bismark's stronger deck armour would have given them nothing, and Hoods weak deck armour wouldn't have been a liability.




barbarrossa -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 4:31:51 AM)

Non-sequitur[:D]




Nikademus -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 5:35:09 AM)

Bismarck's deck armor wouldnt' have mattered either or. The Brit 15 was never a great deck penetrator to begin with. Hood might have had a chance had Tovey's original plan worked as he'd expected and kept the Bismarck at arm's reach (18,000+) But his approach was ruined when the Germans were cited forcing him to close at high speed with part of their firepower masked

However the British admiral was basing his potential immune zone on Hood's own weaponry and not that of the German which had a more powerful veritical penetration thanks to higher mv. It might not have saved Hood had the same hit been scored but getting closer 'still' would have only made the German fire solution easier negated both British ship's armor schemes.

Bismarck's armor scheme was designed with a close range fight in mind and her deck armor turtlebacked below the main armor belt reinforcing the citidal. So in one way a closer fight would play further still into the German's favor. However enough hits and yes, the topside damage would have impaired her ability to fight.

But that was the catch 22 of Hood thanks to a her not having been modernized. Her weak deck armor would not keep her safe at a longer range while a closer one would negate even the strongest part's of her incremental armor scheme. Tovey's smartest move might have been to have PoW lead the battle but of course factors against that move (bereft of hindsight) include British tradition (leading from the front) and the green-ness of PoW's crew and her unworked up state.




SunDevil_MatrixForum -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 6:05:28 AM)

Less filling......




The Gnome -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 6:33:42 AM)

quote:

The poor Hood ... doomed by design ... really ... the poor thing was a CL with BB guns stuck on top.

Not being a naval expert... was it that bad or just bad coupled with a really lucky shot?




Nikademus -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 6:41:24 AM)

no, her design was not bad at all. For a ship of the early 1920's she was among the most powerful afloat with protection superior to that of previous British designs. However her design was still based largely on the old "incremental armor" type scheme where-as "All or Nothing" was the wave of the future. As built, Hood's protection was still focused primarily against low trajectory fire against which her reletively thin armor decks would not have been a liability.

By 1941 though, she was badly in need of modernization. Her deck armor scheme was totally inadequate against the modern shell types she would face at the expected battle ranges. Had she received such a modernization it is possible the "lucky hit" that scored on her might have been averted. Perhaps not. It depends in part of what theory you best subsribe too.

The hit itself could be considered "lucky" in that of all the places on a huge 40,000+ ton warship she could have been struck, the fatal shell happened to land in a critical area. What wasn't lucky was the vulnerability of her armor at the range she was hit.

In game terms, think of it as a belt/deck armor penetration with the 4% chance of a critical hit having been triggered.




The Gnome -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 6:46:22 AM)

quote:

The hit itself could be considered "lucky" in that of all the places on a huge 40,000+ ton warship she could have been struck, the fatal shell happened to land in a critical area. What wasn't lucky was the vulnerability of her armor at the range she was hit.

Thanks Nik, as always good info :) So if she were to engage in continued combats eventually she'd have been hamstrung... ouch.




Apollo11 -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 10:55:45 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

nothing is more sexier than a battleship with a tripod masts. Ah the golden age of Dreadnoughts. No woosie carriers around to hog the glory [;)]


Steve, you would like Yutland sim more than enything else I pressume... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"




Tiornu -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:26:41 PM)

Oyez, oyez, thus begins Rant #1!

All's fair in BB competitions. Some ships are bigger than others, some are newer, but they all play the same game. Me, I'd like to see the Baddest page expanded to include Vanguard and North Carolina.

"...for sheer sex appeal HMS Rodney and HMS Nelson wipe the floor with anything else. "
Indeed, there is nothing sexier than a giant, floating pimple.

"Had the Yamato been designed later, I'm sure it would have been equiped with a lot more AA as well."
Fukui mentioned a Yamato study for rearming the ship with something like 40 5in twins. Ugh. And yes, Yamato was taken out by air attack; she and her escorts managed to shoot down about ten planes--not much of a trade for a battleship, a cruiser, and four destroyers, not to mention the 3600 men.

"Those 16" guns might have served KGV better."
The 16in gun that would have been used for KGV, had the RN gone that route, looks a lot better than the Mk I. The only question is how plagued with bugs it would have been. Basically it was scaled up from the 15in example.

"the Tiger class as well..."
I think you mean Lion. She would have carried those 16in guns.

"It isn't fair to compare the Iowa, and say the King George V class, as both are generations apart, with one class facing severe size restrictions, while the other doesn't and was built with modern war experience."
Iowa and KGV were both built to treaty-restricted tonnages, but KGV's restriction was stricter. Iowa began construction in 1940--not a lot of war experience went into her. If you want a ship with distinct war-inspired upgrades, Vanguard is the best bet.

"South Dakotas are actually a bit worse than their near-sisters the Washingtons since the attempt to compact the design resulted in a less habitable ship."
I found a statement along these lines in D&N's Victory in the Pacific, or whatever it's called, and it's extremely incorrect. SoDak represented a great advance over NC, and my talks with a SoDak class crewmen indicate that habitability was fine.

"Vittorio Venetos had that wonderful merger of a great gun and horrible fire control."
Italian fire control was not bad, within the limits of radarlessness. (Gufo wasn't much of a gunnery enhancer.) Italian gunnery problems had to do mostly with poor ammo QC.

"The Bismarck is always a sore spot for me. Preston calls them something like the most over-rated ship of all time."
With all due respect to Mr Preston (who, by the way, is apparently in very poor health), I don't believe he knows very much about Bismarck. He has been repeating the same incorrect comments about her for years now; that "vulnerable cables" assertion is a good example. My best guess is that he assumed she inherited the flaw from her WWI forebears, which makes sense if you buy the equally invalid assertion that she's just a warmed-over Baden. The thing that left Bismarck toothless in her last fight was getting gang-tackled by the RN and the fact that her main battery protection was just plain bad.

"The U.S. fleet had the iron and oil to put any ship wherever it wanted in top condition, and keep it there for as long as required."
The most probable reason why American battleships played a relatively minor role at Guadalcanal is the fact that the logistical base in the SWPac could not support both carriers and battleships in any sustained way until the end of 1942. That's when Batdiv 1 moved into to the area, and they would have provided heavy support from Dec on, if it had been needed.

"I love how Preston put the Bismarck on the cover of his 'worst ships' book."
I can't help thinking that Bismarck is the most over-rated battleship ever, and the most under-rated, depending on whom you're talking to. She was a mediocre ship, a bit over-weight for the capability, I think.

"It was supposed to be a heavily armed and fast Commerce raider."
Can anyone actually document this. If Bismarck was intended as a commerce raider--whose commerce? France? French ships had numerous influences in German thinking, but I can't find much reference to British ships. If Bismarck had broken out into the Indian Ocean, the French would not have needed to stop her; she would have stopped herself. As effective as German at-sea supply was, it wasn't THAT good! But were the Germans crazy enough to design a 42,000-ton ship to do the job of a 10,000-ton cruiser...?

"I do not think it was the baddest ship for the purpose of commerce raiding. IMO the 'Pocket BBs' seem to me to better fit that description."
Bismarck's designed range: 8410nm at 15 knots
Deutschland's designed range: 18,650nm at 15 knots
Cost of Bismarck's demise: 41,700 tons of metal and 2100 men
Cost of Deutschland's demise: 11,700 tons of metal and 1150 men
Is there any doubt about which ship is the better choice for high-seas raiding? What a shocker--the cruiser is a better choice to do a cruiser's job.

"the poor thing was a CL with BB guns stuck on top."
At the time of her completion, Hood was the best-armored ship in the Royal Navy.




Tiornu -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 12:45:23 PM)

Let Rant #2 begin!

"Since the Bismark actually had a significant number of bad shells"
I can't identify a single Bismarck shell that qualifies as "bad." Eugen, on the other hand, had numerous under-achievers.

"Hood might have had a chance had Tovey's original plan worked as he'd expected and kept the Bismarck at arm's reach (18,000+)"
Holland appears to have been acting in strict accordance with RN doctrine which preferred battleship engagements at 12-16,000 yards. A key factor in this preference was the fact that plunging fire offered greater prospects of catastrophic results from any given hit, and since the British expected to have numerical advantage in any given fight, they didn't want wild cards evening things up. Since Hood was turning to open her broadside right around the 16,000 yards range, and this is almost the exact point at which Bismarck's shells would lose their ability to "bite" into deck armor--this stuff all matches up pretty exactly. Hood had no IZ against Bismarck's shells, so Holland's fundamental thinking appears quite solid to me.

"Bismarck's armor scheme was designed with a close range fight in mind"
This is another one of those things I'd like to see documented. The best design histories on Bismarck are from Whitley and G&D, and I don't see any mention of a short-range criterion. In fact, when you look at the progression from Scharnhorst to Bismarck to Tirpitz to "H," you see increasing attention paid to decks while the main belt thins out.

"was it that bad or just bad coupled with a really lucky shot?"
Since we don't know for certain how Bismarck's shell killed Hood, it's hard to make judgments about it. Any unrebuilt battleship was vulnerable to plunging fire, but the most probable trajectory for the fatal shell here was open for only a few seconds while Hood was turning. In sports, we often say you have to be good enough to be lucky; in this case, the unrebuilt Hood was bad enough to be unlucky. The sort of upgrade given to Renown would likely have saved Hood.

Thus endeth the Rantings.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 3:44:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The poor Hood ... doomed by design ... really ... the poor thing was a CL with BB guns stuck on top.


HOOD met her specs when she was built, being faster than anything she couldn't outgun.
I think the "light cruiser hulls with BB guns" you are thinking of were GLORIOUS,
FURIOUS, & COURAGEOUS. A 3" belt and 18" guns sounds like what you had in mind.
HOOD's armour wasn't outstanding, but matched that of the original DREADNOUGHT's.




freeboy -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 6:12:07 PM)

mike, where those cl's called something else besides bc?




Nikademus -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 8:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



Steve, you would like Yutland sim more than enything else I pressume... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"


My "dream" would be for Gary to revisit and update his classics, "Battlecruiser" and "Warship" in the same way he updated War in Russia, Fighter Command and now, Pacific War. Battlecruiser covered WWI (so there's your Jutland) and WWII Atlantic/Med combat, while "Warship" covered WWII Pacific tactical combat.

I keep hoping....so far no luck [:(]




Nikademus -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 8:22:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

mike, where those cl's called something else besides bc?


No......They were never called battlecruisers. Fisher's "Official" designation for them was "Large light cruiser" and they embodied his ultimate obcessions....maximum speed, maximum firepower. Some sources cite them as having been designed in mind for Baltic adventures (landings on the German coast etc)

However they could in no way be considered true battlecruisers as their protection scheme, short of the turrets was litteraly that of a CL.




Cap Mandrake -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/17/2004 10:10:24 PM)

The Budhists had a Battleship [X(]

I thought they were mostly peaceful. Wow, I need to expand my reading list.




Apollo11 -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/18/2004 10:02:51 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Steve, you would like Yutland sim more than enything else I pressume... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"


My "dream" would be for Gary to revisit and update his classics, "Battlecruiser" and "Warship" in the same way he updated War in Russia, Fighter Command and now, Pacific War. Battlecruiser covered WWI (so there's your Jutland) and WWII Atlantic/Med combat, while "Warship" covered WWII Pacific tactical combat.

I keep hoping....so far no luck [:(]


Who knows... anything can happen... [;)]

BTW, we (as community) really really need good 3D sim for battleships and Yutland is best historic scenario there is IMHO...


Leo "Apollo11"




captskillet -> RE: bad nik....BAD nik! (7/18/2004 4:09:14 PM)

Living just up the road from Houston and Mobile I've been lucky enough to see the Texas and Alabama. Never have seen a 'modern' BB. Have seen a WWII class DD in Baton Rouge...the USS Kidd many times also when I've been to some ballgames in my beloved Tiger Stadium [&o] [&o] [&o]...GEAUX TIGERS!!!! and long live WITP!!!!!


PS..I know the Texas saw action in WWII in the Atlantic I think and was in on D-Day...did the Alabama also see action in WWII???




hithere -> RE: bad nik....BAD nik! (7/18/2004 6:47:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Living just up the road from Houston and Mobile I've been lucky enough to see the Texas and Alabama. Never have seen a 'modern' BB. Have seen a WWII class DD in Baton Rouge...the USS Kidd many times also when I've been to some ballgames in my beloved Tiger Stadium [&o] [&o] [&o]...GEAUX TIGERS!!!! and long live WITP!!!!!


PS..I know the Texas saw action in WWII in the Atlantic I think and was in on D-Day...did the Alabama also see action in WWII???


Yes...see http://www.ussalabama.com/html/history/index.php




Nikademus -> RE: Baddest Battleship (7/18/2004 8:16:21 PM)

yuko, dont want a 3D simulation if it entails any kind of Real time engine. Turn based is the only way to go for me (because that way you see all the action like you do in WitP) I'd gladly accept a "Steel Panthers" type top down view for that




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625