Jump to content


Photo

The Art of War


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#1 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:06 PM

try this 'what if':

Bismark vs. Yamato

explain your stand.

#2 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:39 PM

try this 'what if':

Bismark vs. Yamato

explain your stand.

Does this really have to be debated? Yamato will sink the Bismark PDQ.

Yamato
Displacement: 71,111 metric tons (standard), 73,000 metric tons (full load)
Speed: 27 knots (50kph)
Armor:
650mm on the main turrets
410mm side armor
200-230mm deck armor
Armaments:
9 x 46cm main guns
6 x 15.5cm secondary guns
12 x 12.7cm secondary guns
24 x 25mm AA guns
13 x 13mm AA guns

Bismark
Displacement: 41,700 metric tons (standard), 50,900 metric tons (full load)
Speed: 30.1 knots (55.7kph)
Armor:
360mm on the main turrets
220mm side armor
110-120mm deck armor
Armaments:
8 x 38cm main guns
12 x 15cm secondary guns
16 x 10.5cm secondary guns
16 x 37mm AA guns
20 x 20mm AA guns

So while the Bismark is a tiny fraction faster, its armor is roughly half that of the Yamato and its guns are severely outranged and outpowered by the Yamato.


#3 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:33 PM

Does this really have to be debated? Yamato will sink the Bismark PDQ.

Yamato
Displacement: 71,111 metric tons (standard), 73,000 metric tons (full load)
Speed: 27 knots (50kph)
Armor:
650mm on the main turrets
410mm side armor
200-230mm deck armor
Armaments:
9 x 46cm main guns
6 x 15.5cm secondary guns
12 x 12.7cm secondary guns
24 x 25mm AA guns
13 x 13mm AA guns

Bismark
Displacement: 41,700 metric tons (standard), 50,900 metric tons (full load)
Speed: 30.1 knots (55.7kph)
Armor:
360mm on the main turrets
220mm side armor
110-120mm deck armor
Armaments:
8 x 38cm main guns
12 x 15cm secondary guns
16 x 10.5cm secondary guns
16 x 37mm AA guns
20 x 20mm AA guns

So while the Bismark is a tiny fraction faster, its armor is roughly half that of the Yamato and its guns are severely outranged and outpowered by the Yamato.

let's take them one by one:

1. speed - usueful to a battleship in pursuing or running away. but you're there to fight, not run. and when you're slugging it out with an enemy battleship, speed is not an issue. you both cruise on even keel at around 16 knots. any faster than 20 knots and your firing won't be accurate.

2. armor. yes, the yamato seems able to take more punishment in vitals such as turret, midships. but read on battleship gunnery. there's this thing called "overmatch." a 14-inch shell traveling supersoning (whther from the british prince of wales or the US new mexico class) can smash the yamato's armor assuming sufficient number of hits. what i'm saying is a bttleship can't feel comfortable just because his armor is thicker than the other guy's

3. gunnery - ok, the yamato's guns are far more powerful but here's the thing. the bismark within 4 minutes, will end up heaving more shell at the yamato than vice versa. and mind you, cyclic rate of fire is only half the story. in fact, of all battleships built in WW2, the bismark has the highest firepower rating (even more than the US new jersey class.) even i was surpised.

#4 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:55 PM

let's take them one by one:

Agreed, one by one.

1. speed - usueful to a battleship in pursuing or running away. but you're there to fight, not run. and when you're slugging it out with an enemy battleship, speed is not an issue. you both cruise on even keel at around 16 knots. any faster than 20 knots and your firing won't be accurate.

Agreed, thus we can remove this issue.

2. armor. yes, the yamato seems able to take more punishment in vitals such as turret, midships. but read on battleship gunnery. there's this thing called "overmatch." a 14-inch shell traveling supersoning (whther from the british prince of wales or the US new mexico class) can smash the yamato's armor assuming sufficient number of hits. what i'm saying is a bttleship can't feel comfortable just because his armor is thicker than the other guy's

The Yamato's armor is 410mm with an additional 355mm thick bulkheads, that is 30" of armor protecting her sides, inclined at a 20o angle. Not to mention that her armored decks protect more of the ship being set higher than that of the Bismark. While I'm certain that the 38cm guns of the Bismark would, eventually, given sufficient time, get through the Yamato's armor, the probability of the Yamato's 46cm guns going through the Bismark's armor is much higher as they were designed to go through 200mm of armor, which is almost double that of the Bismark's 100-110mm deck armor.

3. gunnery - ok, the yamato's guns are far more powerful but here's the thing. the bismark within 4 minutes, will end up heaving more shell at the yamato than vice versa. and mind you, cyclic rate of fire is only half the story. in fact, of all battleships built in WW2, the bismark has the highest firepower rating (even more than the US new jersey class.) even i was surpised.

The Bismark has 8 38cm guns with an average firing rate of 1 shell per minute with an effective range of 35.5 kilometers as opposed to the Yamato's 9 46cm guns with an average firing rate of 1 shell per 2 minutes with an effective range of 42 kilometers, thus while the Yamato can use her guns for effective volleys from 42 kilometers (and assuming that they maintain a closure rate of 16 kilometers per hour or 266.67 meters per minute, that means that effectively, the Yamato can be pounding away at the Bismark for 24 minutes or 12 full volleys by the 46cm guns, each shell of which will penetrate the armor of the Bismark). Once within range of the Bismark, even though they can fire twice as quickly, the 38cm shells will still have to go through 200 to 230mm of armored decks (the thinnest part of the Yamato's shell) which would require 3 to 5 hits on the same spot (+/- 1 meter) to have a chance of penetrating the armor of the Yamato.

#5 Hex_Arenas

Hex_Arenas

    Lover

  • (06) Chronic Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1075 posts
  • Location:Metro Manila
  • Interests:Good food, good books, good music and great conversations... *tink*

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:13 AM

I once saw a documentary where it was implied the Yamato crew was never in top shape. This was from interviews of those Japanese sailors who survived the Yamato's destruction, or were reassigned prior to it. The basic idea was the Yamato was the apple of the eye of the Japanese navy and the crew did not go through the usual rigors of training, they were mostly in dock or just cruising in friendly waters. Main point, they were not battle-hardened. The implication was the Yamato will lose any fight in open waters. I didnt see the whole documentary.

I think the Bismark (and the better-trained crew) will win a one to one fight against the Yamato. Very easily.

Edited by Hex_Arenas, 01 December 2009 - 02:16 AM.


#6 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:13 AM

The Yamato's armor is 410mm with an additional 355mm thick bulkheads, that is 30" of armor protecting her sides, inclined at a 20o angle. Not to mention that her armored decks protect more of the ship being set higher than that of the Bismark. While I'm certain that the 38cm guns of the Bismark would, eventually, given sufficient time, get through the Yamato's armor, the probability of the Yamato's 46cm guns going through the Bismark's armor is much higher as they were designed to go through 200mm of armor, which is almost double that of the Bismark's 100-110mm deck armor.[/color][/size][/font][/i]

agreed

The Bismark has 8 38cm guns with an average firing rate of 1 shell per minute with an effective range of 35.5 kilometers as opposed to the Yamato's 9 46cm guns with an average firing rate of 1 shell per 2 minutes with an effective range of 42 kilometers, thus while the Yamato can use her guns for effective volleys from 42 kilometers (and assuming that they maintain a closure rate of 16 kilometers per hour or 266.67 meters per minute, that means that effectively, the Yamato can be pounding away at the Bismark for 24 minutes or 12 full volleys by the 46cm guns, each shell of which will penetrate the armor of the Bismark). Once within range of the Bismark, even though they can fire twice as quickly, the 38cm shells will still have to go through 200 to 230mm of armored decks (the thinnest part of the Yamato's shell) which would require 3 to 5 hits on the same spot (+/- 1 meter) to have a chance of penetrating the armor of the Yamato.[/color][/size][/font][/i]

first, don't think of the yamato as some kind of floating anvil, or any battleship for that matter. even the best battleship is susceptible to secondary caliber fire (from 8-inch cruiser guns or even 5-inch destroyer guns.) it's main armore may not be penetrated by hits elsewhere could start fires, knock out communication lines or k*ll enough number of sailors to force it to withdraw.

as i said, cylic rate of fire is only half the story. but let's reserve that for a few more things: first, radar is needed for long-range firing and no battleship engagement was ever decided at long range, by only only the first or second salvo. both fighters close in and inevitably switch to visual sighting. this is the case even when the kirishima got busted by washington during a night engagement at guadalcanal.

the yamato, on a clear day at long range, might get the range sooner using a combination of radar and its huge optical sights. but no battleship was ever sunk with just one or two shells. the two combatants will invariably close to point-blank range, assuming they can still fight. and at close range, the bismark's gunnery was proven effective.

going back to who can heave more shell over time. if we go by just machine rate of fire, the yamato can throw 45 shells in five minutes as against the bismark's 60. but get this: at ten miles, the shell has to travel at least 6 seconds. and you cant change your elevation and traverse without first seeing where your last shot landed (either an explosion hit or a 100-foot water fountain.) then your re-aim and fire. now, the bismark's shells travel at a very flat trajectory and at a much higher velocity than the yamato's. that means that even with a similar cyclic ROF, the bismark can fire the next salvo sooner and more accurately. in fact, the only other BB that can match the bismark's firepower rating is the new jersey and the latter had better take the bismark out at long range.

lastly, we go to actual performance. one thing the war books tend to overlook is the fact that the bismark had the best shooting record of all battleships that saw engagement. it dueled with three enemy battleships and it found the range for each within 4 salvos. no other BB can boast a similar record. the yamato, on the other hand, wasn't able to train its main guns at destroyers on a clear day at close range. it hit one destroyer with a shell at leyte gulf and it was a dud.

so my conclusion is that in a one-on-one engagement, the bismark will likely pound the yamato deaf-dumb and blind after 10 salvos (slightly less than 20 minutes.)

#7 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:45 AM

I once saw a documentary where it was implied the Yamato crew was never in top shape. This was from interviews of those Japanese sailors who survived the Yamato's destruction, or were reassigned prior to it. The basic idea was the Yamato was the apple of the eye of the Japanese navy and the crew did not go through the usual rigors of training, they were mostly in dock or just cruising in friendly waters. Main point, they were not battle-hardened. The implication was the Yamato will lose any fight in open waters. I didnt see the whole documentary.

I think the Bismark (and the better-trained crew) will win a one to one fight against the Yamato. Very easily.

The way the IJN considered the Yamato was that it was the flagship for the entire IJN, only the best and the brightest got assigned to her in the beginning, it was only later in the Pacific War (1943) when the Musashi entered service, that the crew was split to man both behemoths, and their replacements were not as rigidly trained (also due to the losses that the IJN suffered in the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway). The Bismark only had the one crew without the splitting that was done to the Yamato. Based on the original profiles of both ships, I would venture that the Yamato would have pounded the Bismark into the sea quickly enough.

first, don't think of the yamato as some kind of floating anvil, or any battleship for that matter. even the best battleship is susceptible to secondary caliber fire (from 8-inch cruiser guns or even 5-inch destroyer guns.) it's main armore may not be penetrated by hits elsewhere could start fires, knock out communication lines or k*ll enough number of sailors to force it to withdraw.

as i said, cylic rate of fire is only half the story. but let's reserve that for a few more things: first, radar is needed for long-range firing and no battleship engagement was ever decided at long range, by only only the first or second salvo. both fighters close in and inevitably switch to visual sighting. this is the case even when the kirishima got busted by washington during a night engagement at guadalcanal.

the yamato, on a clear day at long range, might get the range sooner using a combination of radar and its huge optical sights. but no battleship was ever sunk with just one or two shells. the two combatants will invariably close to point-blank range, assuming they can still fight. and at close range, the bismark's gunnery was proven effective.

going back to who can heave more shell over time. if we go by just machine rate of fire, the yamato can throw 45 shells in five minutes as against the bismark's 60. but get this: at ten miles, the shell has to travel at least 6 seconds. and you cant change your elevation and traverse without first seeing where your last shot landed (either an explosion hit or a 100-foot water fountain.) then your re-aim and fire. now, the bismark's shells travel at a very flat trajectory and at a much higher velocity than the yamato's. that means that even with a similar cyclic ROF, the bismark can fire the next salvo sooner and more accurately. in fact, the only other BB that can match the bismark's firepower rating is the new jersey and the latter had better take the bismark out at long range.

lastly, we go to actual performance. one thing the war books tend to overlook is the fact that the bismark had the best shooting record of all battleships that saw engagement. it dueled with three enemy battleships and it found the range for each within 4 salvos. no other BB can boast a similar record. the yamato, on the other hand, wasn't able to train its main guns at destroyers on a clear day at close range. it hit one destroyer with a shell at leyte gulf and it was a dud.

so my conclusion is that in a one-on-one engagement, the bismark will likely pound the yamato deaf-dumb and blind after 10 salvos (slightly less than 20 minutes.)

Considering that the Yamato has 24 minutes head start to pound the Bismark, that's 12 salvos, are we assuming that both ships would be manned by the best that the IJN and the Kriegsmarine both have to offer (which was the case in both ships during their initial deployment) then the Yamato would turn to present its broadside as soon as the Bismark came into range which would lessen the rate of closure. With that in mind, the 24 minutes (12 volleys) would be extended to almost 48 minutes (24 volleys) before the Bismark can even begin to range the Yamato. Even with that, the Bismark has to pound the same 2 meter stretch of armor with at least 6 shells before they would penetrate the armor of the Yamato. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your conclusions in this matter, in a one on one match, the Yamato would win.

#8 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 11:58 AM

your assessment is correct in that the yamato could commence fire from (only a slightly) longer distance. but that's just one scenario and it assumes a clear day with ideal conditions. the thing is, no gun-to-gun battle between BBs was ever won and lost past 20,000 meters. the reason's simple: accuracy past 10,000 meters falls to a very large degree. no, the battle will be won and lost from distance less than 10,000 meters.

the only possibility to yamato's favor is a line confrontation involving 2 or more BBs on either side. the addage that two is better than one cannot be better demostrated than with battleship fighting. one's effectiveness by adding a second battleship is more than tripled. of course, you have exceptions. at the denmark strait, the bismark managed to fight off two BBs. days later, with a sleepless crew, it failed against two more british battleships.

so here's a curved ball: i think the yamato and musashi would win against the bismark and tirpitz tandem if the fight began at 40,000 meters.

#9 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 01 December 2009 - 05:52 PM

your assessment is correct in that the yamato could commence fire from (only a slightly) longer distance. but that's just one scenario and it assumes a clear day with ideal conditions. the thing is, no gun-to-gun battle between BBs was ever won and lost past 20,000 meters. the reason's simple: accuracy past 10,000 meters falls to a very large degree. no, the battle will be won and lost from distance less than 10,000 meters.

the only possibility to yamato's favor is a line confrontation involving 2 or more BBs on either side. the addage that two is better than one cannot be better demostrated than with battleship fighting. one's effectiveness by adding a second battleship is more than tripled. of course, you have exceptions. at the denmark strait, the bismark managed to fight off two BBs. days later, with a sleepless crew, it failed against two more british battleships.

so here's a curved ball: i think the yamato and musashi would win against the bismark and tirpitz tandem if the fight began at 40,000 meters.

Well if we are going to go for worse case scenario, then let's call it at a shoot-out at point blank range, 20 feet apart. At night, in the middle of a hurricane. In which case both ships would sink PDQ. LOL, its a granted that both ships could win, but, the Yamato has a better chance I think.

Though, here's a bigger wargame for you. The IJN + the Kriegsmarine vs the US Navy + Royal Navy in one massive affair with their 1939 TO&E, how long would the fight last? (Assuming optimal weather conditions).


#10 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:17 PM

as of 1939, the royal navy alone would have more tonnage in ships than japn and germany put together. the US would have an equal tonnage but most of these are world war 1-vintage ships and all battleships are pre-washington treaty level.

if i were the axis, i'd fight in inland seas like the channel area, the med, or around the japanese islands. topography and shoreline can easily negate one's numerical superiority (think salamis, tsushima straight, even leyte gulf in a narrow sense.) the germans, though far from having a high seas fleet as of 1939, had a passable "brown water" navy capable of fighting a littoral battle. the japanese, on the other hand, have preserved much of their pre-washington battleships even after they were forced to scuttle some of them to comply with treaty requirements.

Well if we are going to go for worse case scenario, then let's call it at a shoot-out at point blank range, 20 feet apart. At night, in the middle of a hurricane. In which case both ships would sink PDQ. LOL, its a granted that both ships could win, but, the Yamato has a better chance I think.

i don't have the numbers right now but you might. check the bismark's draft and height of hull above water in relation to the yamato's. also check the size and height above water of their respective superstructures. if the bismark is considerably lower than the yamato, then the yamato doesn't stand a chance. first, the yamato can't lower its guns below horizontal (that's why it couldn't shoot at destroyers at close range at leyte gulf.) second, the bismark would love a close-in fight. deck armor is not critical up close since shells will just deflect due to the low elevation. the yamato's waterline armor is thicker but the bismark has a very wide beam for its weight and its compartments are miniscule. that's why the bismark was able to stay afloat even after receiveing so many hits from the rodney and king george v.

#11 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:59 AM

as of 1939, the royal navy alone would have more tonnage in ships than japn and germany put together. the US would have an equal tonnage but most of these are world war 1-vintage ships and all battleships are pre-washington treaty level.

if i were the axis, i'd fight in inland seas like the channel area, the med, or around the japanese islands. topography and shoreline can easily negate one's numerical superiority (think salamis, tsushima straight, even leyte gulf in a narrow sense.) the germans, though far from having a high seas fleet as of 1939, had a passable "brown water" navy capable of fighting a littoral battle. the japanese, on the other hand, have preserved much of their pre-washington battleships even after they were forced to scuttle some of them to comply with treaty requirements.

The Royal Navy was the largest with the US Navy a close second, the IJN was the 3rd largest, with the Italian Navy and Kriegsmarine in 4th and 5th place. So Allies vs. Axis would still be a close match.

In a straight out fight (without placing the terrain into consideration), who would win?


i don't have the numbers right now but you might. check the bismark's draft and height of hull above water in relation to the yamato's. also check the size and height above water of their respective superstructures. if the bismark is considerably lower than the yamato, then the yamato doesn't stand a chance. first, the yamato can't lower its guns below horizontal (that's why it couldn't shoot at destroyers at close range at leyte gulf.) second, the bismark would love a close-in fight. deck armor is not critical up close since shells will just deflect due to the low elevation. the yamato's waterline armor is thicker but the bismark has a very wide beam for its weight and its compartments are miniscule. that's why the bismark was able to stay afloat even after receiveing so many hits from the rodney and king george v.

LOL, in the pitching seas of a hurricane, the height doesn't matter as the pitching of the ocean will ensure that each side gets a fair shot (at 20').

Look, if you keep optimizing the fight for the Bismark, rather than setting strictly in terms of firepower and armor and speed, then of course you can influence the outcome. LOL, you can even set it that the Yamato has no powder, no fuel, and no crew, then I'm sure it'll lose.

The way to compute the respective strengths is to assume equal quality of crew, fully loaded fuel and ammo bunkers, bright clear weather with no cloud cover or islands, starting off out of range of each other.

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 03 December 2009 - 12:40 PM.


#12 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 11:52 AM

oh i forgot completely, if they were 20 feet of each other abreast, the yamato would win for sure: at 20 feet, their main guns will bang and clang against each other when swivelling so the yamato, with bigger and more guns, will dent and bend the bismark's guns in a few minutes, nya! ha! ha! ha!

#13 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 02 December 2009 - 12:40 PM

oh i forgot completely, if they were 20 feet of each other abreast, the yamato would win for sure: at 20 feet, their main guns will bang and clang against each other when swivelling so the yamato, with bigger and more guns, will dent and bend the bismark's guns in a few minutes, nya! ha! ha! ha!

Actually I was thinking that they'd slam into each other, comparing their sizes, armor, and tonnage, it'd be like a LAV (Yamato) going up against a BMW (Bismark).

#14 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 08:15 AM

The Royal Navy was the largest with the US Navy a close second, the IJN was the 3rd largest, with the Italian Navy and Kriegsmarine in 4th and 5th place. So Allies vs. Axis would still be a close match.

In a straight out fight (without placing the terrain into consideration), who would win?

you forgot the french fleet with four battleships. this is one one interesting "what if." supposing right after the germans overrun southern france, the remnants of the french army, airforce and navy retreated to french-held north africa and decided to fight on? with more than 200,000 soldiers, a small airforce and four battleships, they could have helped bottle up the italians and eventually germans in north africa and make a counter-invasion of southern europe by americans and british far easier.

#15 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 09:22 AM

you forgot the french fleet with four battleships. this is one one interesting "what if." supposing right after the germans overrun southern france, the remnants of the french army, airforce and navy retreated to french-held north africa and decided to fight on? with more than 200,000 soldiers, a small airforce and four battleships, they could have helped bottle up the italians and eventually germans in north africa and make a counter-invasion of southern europe by americans and british far easier.

Well considering that the French haven't won a war since the Franco-Prussian war, I'm not so sure they could have bottled up the Germans in North Africa. Rommel did make fools of a lot of British officers who are, on average, better than their French counterparts.

#16 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:39 AM

Well considering that the French haven't won a war since the Franco-Prussian war, I'm not so sure they could have bottled up the Germans in North Africa. Rommel did make fools of a lot of British officers who are, on average, better than their French counterparts.

correction: the french were "part" of the allied victory in ww1 and even in ww2. in the latter, the belatedly organized french army took part in the final drive into germany.

#17 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:54 AM

correction: the french were "part" of the allied victory in ww1 and even in ww2. in the latter, the belatedly organized french army took part in the final drive into germany.

Hahaha, the French generals ordered so many charges across the trenches in WW1 that they virtually emptied France of adult males. Lets face it, without the Brits and Americans pulling their fat out of the fire in WW1 they'd be saluting the Kaiser now. As for WW2, they were overrun in a matter of weeks. Forget it, the French are good at making nice uniforms and saluting, but their record in war is losing.

#18 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:40 PM

ok, let's move back to capital ships. which of the two groups would you choose if you were to drive the other group out of the high seas:

15 battleships or 15 fleet carriers?

#19 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:47 PM

ok, let's move back to capital ships. which of the two groups would you choose if you were to drive the other group out of the high seas:

15 battleships or 15 fleet carriers?

Any other conditions?

What are the range?
Weather?
Fuel Status?
Ammo Status?
Type of BB and CV?

Based upon the following conditions, I would go for the carriers.
What are the range? 400 kilometers away
Weather? Crystal clear blue sky at dawn.
Fuel Status? Full fuel for everything.
Ammo Status? Full ammo load for everything.
Type of BB and CV? 15 Bismark or Yamato class BB vs. 15 Nimitz Class CVNs carrying full squadron loads of Super Hornets (hmmm ... or maybe Tomcats).

Okay, I know this is insane of course. LOL. A nice what if scenario, if you've watched the movie The Final Countdown, what if they didn't return to the present, what would have happened?

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 03 December 2009 - 04:50 PM.


#20 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 05:43 PM

the condition is supremacy in the high seas. it doesn't matter from what point in the globe you start. you can assume you have access to unlimited supplies and replenishment (but not of lost ships,) whether in your base or at sea (though you run the risk of your supply ships being destroyed.) your can choose which location you can base from, at what lattitude you wish to come and challenge your opponent, whether day or night.

i always go with the battle ship and my opponent the carriers. i wonder why.

my force: 15 iowa-class battleships modified by removing B turret and replacing that with additional AA guns. the 12 5" guns will be reduced to 6 to make way for more 40MM and .50 cal guns. same engine to provide a flank speed of 30 knots and boosts to 35 knots.

my base? various supply depots within the visayan island group (Cebu, bacolod, panay, leyte, etc..) all those islands offer several points that can be modified for deep-draft capital ships.

your carriers? stick to WW2 actual deployed vessels.

Edited by macbolan00, 03 December 2009 - 05:45 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users