Okay I have to tell you about this huge-ass sea battle I had.
I have been playing the campaign of Jutland as Germans, with the option of historical British code-braking.
First two weeks were mostly about me sweeping away the light patrols of SE England.
On the evening of 22nd of January 1916, however, my Scout Fleet (4 BCs and accompanying light ships) was about to sail out and bombard Blyth on the eastern coast. My plan was the original German one: to trigger a response by a British force inferior to my High Fleet, and lure it into the hands of my dreadnoughts.
Early next morning, while my zeppelins were already slighty in front of Scout Fleet to well, scout for it, a german merchant ship reported a big British force near Blyth before it was sunk by them - the formation was IDed as the British Battlecruiser Force. Spotting the opportunity for the desired battle, I immediately ordered the High Fleet (which kas kept in ready status) out to intercept, hoping that the BC Force would be out alone.
It was not. The zeppelins spotted the Grand Fleet. By that time my Scout Fleet was quite near. A cat and mouse game ensued. By early afternoon I knew I was risking a lot, the 4 fleets tried to locate each other in favorable terms.
Then, just after sunset, my High Fleet, moving west, spotted some light cruisers and an armored cruiser. The Scout Fleet was also travelling by not far, with a SE direction, from the north. Like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg228.imageshack.us%2Fimg228%2F6532%2Fdraw1.th.jpg&hash=80338b516ae03da43c62fd0c7485c3eaddf5265a) (http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6532/draw1.jpg)
One thing was sure: I would let the Scouts just move out of the battle, I did not want to risk my BCs. So the question was: did I encounter the British BCs, or their main fleet? The AC pointed toward the former, so while the british cruisers wreaked havoc among my scattered CLs. I kept the western course with my main fleet, except for a division of destroyers whom I sent speeding for the at-that-time lonely British AC, the Antrim.
Before getting torpedo range however, they also spotted the British Battle Cruisers! The Lion, the Princess Royal, the Queen Mary and the Tiger were in one division, going east straight toward my BBs!
My DDs fired their torpedo salvos but all they achieved was light damage on the P. Royal. Then the British BCs seemingly tried to avoid my battleships by turning to the south. My BBs were in one long line in several divisions. So as a reaction, I sent the second division to the south while the rest went on westward.
However, the Brit BCs turned back north! They passed my 2nd BB division trading indecisive fire, then crossed the line of my first BB division. Of course this was their death, but much to my shock, not only they caused big damage, they also launched a totally devastating close range torpedo salvo, very fastly sinking my two dreadnoughts, König (my flagship, FFS!) and Grosser Kurfürst. Here is a screenshot with three dying mighty ships, one already under the water level (a black circle indicates a ship beyond repair, but the actual time it takes to sink may vary dramatically and of course will keep fighting until the crew abandones it). Also notice the rain which kept coming and going during the entire battle:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg229.imageshack.us%2Fimg229%2F7981%2Fjutland11933516seconds.th.jpg&hash=461491d7c158d01ec6ddd77050126fcba3d1377c) (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7981/jutland11933516seconds.jpg)
So it costed me two dreandoughts and some others damaged but I thought the battle was over. I knew the Brits had more BC's, but the big number of escort vessels my cruisers saw closing in decided to flee eastward, so I assumed those other BCs were running as well.
So started what I thought to be a mop up of the various British Armored Cruisers who followed their ill-fated big brothers.
Long storty short, a smaller half of my BBs went north-west, the rest made a U turn toward the north while hunting smaller ships. Somewhat like this (should have made screens of the battlemap, meh)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg229.imageshack.us%2Fimg229%2F262%2Fdraw2.th.jpg&hash=70874cb2a4fcab3bce845deda9ac45c57dce8c91) (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/262/draw2.jpg)
At north, it so happened that a single dreadnought of mine, the Markgrat was way ahead of the others, and in the dark nearly ran into 4 British ones, the Orion, the Monarch, the Conqueror, and the Thunderer. Needless to say poor Markgrat met a quick end but caused moderate damage to the Orion before that, and the Brits were in big trouble as, probably unkown to them, 8 German BBs were going for them at full speed to avenge the Markgrat.
So at this point, I was a bit puzzled. 4 BBs? Why? Did the AI joined dreandoughts to the BC fleet? Why? If not and their main fleet joined the battle like mine did, why are they sending just where is the rest?
It did not take long to spot them: they were coming from the north-east, and met my main BB force!
Of course this was still in pitch dark conditions with rain so by the time they met each other (sporting the seamanship of my dual-monarchy ancestors, I did not take the clue from the sporadicly incoming light cruisers), they were well, well in firing range. So there we were, close range night battle between dreadnoughts! But it was no question: I had to run.
I was HAMMERED, but fought back viciously while turning around, and after losing 2 or 3 BBs, the AI seemed to disengage as well.
And while it did seem to change its mind, mostly it was too late, the rate of causalities decreased (for half an hour or so, BBs were going down left and right as both sub-battles raged on), then the battle ended:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg90.imageshack.us%2Fimg90%2F6695%2Fjutland11941555seconds.th.jpg&hash=6afe7f6588cc6bb1621cd25f91cee08f9e4b3a2c) (http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6695/jutland11941555seconds.jpg)
The final list of causalities (I had to open a battlelog txt file in excel to get this btw) is rather sad. I think my main fleet is as good as gone.
British BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger. Also a total of 13 ACs
German BBs: Kaiserin, Friedrich Der Grosse, König Albert, Prinzregent Luitpold, König, Grosser Kurfürst, Markgraf, Preussen, Deutschland, Pommern, Schlesien, Scleswig-Holstein
And of course a big bunch of escorts.
But still, it was an awesome battle.
Nice, do another. How complicated is it to run by the way?
QuoteBB König
LOL, did he bring Lucille?
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 22, 2009, 11:22:57 AM
Nice, do another. How complicated is it to run by the way?
Well I figured it out reasonably fast without checking the manual but I played with their previous game, and did make some mistakes while learning. Like most strategy game interfaces, it needs time to get used to but than works.
As for running the campaign it is easy-peazy, except that it switches to battle view for every merchant caught then you click end battle you click yes you watch the 2d map autoresolving the battle then you click ok on the battle report then click back to campaign button. :bleeding:
otherwise it is fine.
So basically you got pasted?
Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2009, 10:50:13 AM
The final list of causalities (I had to open a battlelog txt file in excel to get this btw) is rather sad. I think my main fleet is as good as gone.
British BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger. Also a total of 13 ACs
German BBs: Kaiserin, Friedrich Der Grosse, König Albert, Prinzregent Luitpold, König, Grosser Kurfürst, Markgraf, Preussen, Deutschland, Pommern, Schlesien, Scleswig-Holstein
And of course a big bunch of escorts.
But still, it was an awesome battle.
Wow, the Kaiser probably hanged himself after he got that list.
Quote from: Cecil on August 22, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
So basically you got pasted?
Sort of, altough I disengaged before I could be wiped out.
It was my inexperience: by not spotting any of the British BBs while I was busy killing off their BCs (I deliberately left my forward light cruisers just going in a few directions so I could spot those guys), I grew complacent and thought I had it safe and easy. Then out of the night and rain appeared the entire British fleet, all guns blazing, at close range.
Have to respect limited visibility more.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2009, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2009, 10:50:13 AM
The final list of causalities (I had to open a battlelog txt file in excel to get this btw) is rather sad. I think my main fleet is as good as gone.
British BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger. Also a total of 13 ACs
German BBs: Kaiserin, Friedrich Der Grosse, König Albert, Prinzregent Luitpold, König, Grosser Kurfürst, Markgraf, Preussen, Deutschland, Pommern, Schlesien, Scleswig-Holstein
And of course a big bunch of escorts.
But still, it was an awesome battle.
Wow, the Kaiser probably hanged himself after he got that list.
Why? The Germans didn't do badly, considering the conditions. Seven dreadnoughts for seven dreadnoughts and the entire modern RN battlecruiser fleet. It's a German tactical victory that leaves the strategic situation unchanged. Actually, the best of both fleets were lost.
I so wanted their Russo-Japanese War. Then the DRM details came out, and suddenly, I'd rather have a nail jammed into my penis than buy their game.
:(
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2009, 04:10:14 PM
I so wanted their Russo-Japanese War. Then the DRM details came out, and suddenly, I'd rather have a nail jammed into my penis than buy their game.
:(
Explain.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2009, 06:39:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 22, 2009, 04:10:14 PM
I so wanted their Russo-Japanese War. Then the DRM details came out, and suddenly, I'd rather have a nail jammed into my penis than buy their game.
:(
Explain.
if you don't play the game after a period of time you have to re-activate the game.
Considering I'll not touch a game for a month, seems like a pain in the ass.
QuoteQ. Does an SES Product require Internet access?
A. An SES Product only requires Internet access for Installation, Updates, and once per License check period (currently 7 Days). If your License has not been validated during the License Check period, your game will cease to function until it is able to connect to Storm Eagle Studios server to re-validate the install.
By using this feature, Storm Eagle Studios enables the end user to move an SES Product License at will to any PC that can connect to the internet for validation, after the License Check Period has expired (Currently 7 Days). The 7 day period also allows for an end user to take an SES Product on vacation or a business trip.
And this from their FAQ:
QuoteQ. What happens if my PC crashes?
A. In this event, you wait the remainder of an SES Product's License check period (currently 7 Days) and you can Re-Activate your License on any PC that has Internet access. This is accomplished totally without the need to contact Storm Eagle Studios.
QuoteBritish BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.
:weep:
Quote from: Warspite on August 23, 2009, 05:34:02 AM
QuoteBritish BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.
:weep:
It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore. Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.
I'm considering downloading this today. Anyone else have it? Any other reviews?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2009, 08:41:34 AM
I'm considering downloading this today. Anyone else have it? Any other reviews?
There is a demo. To be precise, you can (need) to download the full thing then you can evaluate it. You can play most of the scenarios for 10 minutes or The Duel (dreadnought one on one) for full time. Also includes the demo scens for the US expansion. BTW if you purchase soon you might be lucky enough to get the expansion for free as I did.
But, the DRM is way too assholish for me to recommend the game. Decide for yourself.
Quote from: Tamas on August 23, 2009, 09:06:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2009, 08:41:34 AM
I'm considering downloading this today. Anyone else have it? Any other reviews?
There is a demo. To be precise, you can (need) to download the full thing then you can evaluate it. You can play most of the scenarios for 10 minutes or The Duel (dreadnought one on one) for full time. Also includes the demo scens for the US expansion. BTW if you purchase soon you might be lucky enough to get the expansion for free as I did.
But, the DRM is way too assholish for me to recommend the game. Decide for yourself.
Yeah, I just downloaded the demo, I'll play with it in a bit.
I really don't care about the DRM. Unlike some of you LIVE FREE OR DIE types, stuff like that doesn't bother me.
Downloaded it, played the demo for a few hours.
Pretty cool sending flotillas of destroyers to their deaths to break up formations.
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 06:55:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on August 23, 2009, 05:34:02 AM
QuoteBritish BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.
:weep:
It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore. Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.
Well, the Barham wasn't there (in WWII) for very long. ;)
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 06:55:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on August 23, 2009, 05:34:02 AM
QuoteBritish BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.
:weep:
It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore. Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.
To the best of my knowledge the Rodney was the only BB to sink another BB during WWII. :contract:
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 03:23:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 06:55:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on August 23, 2009, 05:34:02 AM
QuoteBritish BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.
:weep:
It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore. Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.
To the best of my knowledge the Rodney was the only BB to sink another BB during WWII. :contract:
Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
Granted, you could say Hood was a BC,
Hood is a BB, because that's more embarrassing for the Brits.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.
Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 07:14:03 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.
Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.
Ooops. My bad, of course the 'Duke of York' was the BB that sunk 'Scharnhost', not 'Rodney'.
But anyway, what's the difference between a 'fast battleship' of WW2 and a BC from the Great War with heavier, armour? I would say the distinction lost all meaning after 1922; all battleships built in the 30s and 40s combined the speed of a battlecruiser of 1914-18 with the weaponry and armour of true BBs, excepting one-of-a kind and not too successful concepts like the 'Scharnhost' or 'Alaka' classes (both probably better defined as very big heavy cruisers).
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 07:14:03 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.
Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.
If we are going to be dickish about things because of designations, Bismarck was not a battleship, it was a
Panzerschiff (armored ship) just like the
Graf Spee and pretty much every other German ship larger than the cruisers. If we are being realistic instead of pedantic, though, we will recognize that
Hood, Scharnhorst,
Bismarck, and
Kirishima were all actually battleships, no matter what they were called.
Battlescuisers have battleship armament and cruiser protection. Fast battleships with (or without) a weak main armament are still battleships, because they have battleship protection. Hood had both battleship protection and battleship main armament.
And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 07:29:40 AM
But anyway, what's the difference between a 'fast battleship' of WW2 and a BC from the Great War with heavier, armour? I would say the distinction lost all meaning after 1922; all battleships built in the 30s and 40s combined the speed of a battlecruiser of 1914-18 with the weaponry and armour of true BBs, excepting one-of-a kind and not too successful concepts like the 'Scharnhost' or 'Alaka' classes (both probably better defined as very big heavy cruisers).
Neither of these were "one of a kind!" :lol:
You are correct, though, that no real battlecruisers were built after
Renown class, because the development of the small-tube boiler meant that you could have a powerplant powerful enough to drive a battleship at hull speed without sacrificing armor.
Scharnhorst was an intermediate battleship design, to allow the German shipbuilding industry to work out their bugs (from long unemployment) without risking anything design-wise. When re-armed to 15" guns, there would be no question that they were battleships (having roughly the same tonnage and protection as the
Queen Elizabeths). They were perfectly suited to their missions (though radar had made their missions obsolete by the time WW2 broke out). The
Alaska class was the classic example of building a design that was specifically proposed to oppose an enemy class that never appeared. They were large cruisers, being built on a cruiser hull (and almost unturnable because that hull form didn't translate well on the larger scale - the
Alaska had a larger turning radius than any carrier or battleship, and almost as large as an oiler).
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 08:01:47 AM
And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".
Love the idea, but kinda doubt it's veracity given the time of design (maybe the
Hood was called this at one point). Got a cite?
Don't argue with Grumbler, he was retired by the time the Dreadnought was designed.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 08:05:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 08:01:47 AM
And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".
Love the idea, but kinda doubt it's veracity given the time of design (maybe the Hood was called this at one point). Got a cite?
http://books.google.com/books?id=-EfYyhrtOq8C&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=%22fully+armoured+battlecruiser%22&source=bl&ots=9IOn7K6saS&sig=lUttvyMwV57BhmGRWKM-3IPxlB4&hl=en&ei=jpSSSr6rMo-OMYLOqZIK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=%22fully%20armoured%20battlecruiser%22&f=false
http://www.military-genealogy.org.uk/3823/HMS_Vanguard
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 07:14:03 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.
Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.
Hard to say, really. Hood might be considered a battlecruiser, but only because of her speed. The Hood was actually armoured roughly as well as the Queen Elizabeths, and when she was built she would have been the most ridiculously powerful ship in the world, combining heavy armour with good firepower and great speed. Unfortunately, crappy British weaponry (whether it be UP projectors or the ridiculous 4" AA gun) doomed her.
The Kongos were considered battleships during WWII, although even moreso than the Hood their protection was outdated. Then again, all the Japanese battleships except Yamato and Musashi suffered from age. It's interesting that the popular idea of the Japanese admiralty was that they were full of old-school 'battleship' types, and yet the Japanese battleship fleet was inferior to every other major power when the war started, with the possible exception of France.
I'd have to consider Scharnhorst to be a battleship. Really, because of its high muzzle velocity, you can't really knock the Scharnhorst's armament. At typical engagement ranges, it wasn't really all that inferior to the British 14" gun on the KGVs, although at long ranges the lighter shell was at a disadvantage. Still, given the scale of protection, it seems reasonable to consider them amongst the pantheon of 30s battleships.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 08:02:34 AM
You are correct, though, that no real battlecruisers were built after Renown class, because the development of the small-tube boiler meant that you could have a powerplant powerful enough to drive a battleship at hull speed without sacrificing armor. Scharnhorst was an intermediate battleship design, to allow the German shipbuilding industry to work out their bugs (from long unemployment) without risking anything design-wise.
In that regard, they're quite similar to Dunkerque and Strasbourg, who paved the way for the Richelieus.
QuoteThe Alaska class was the classic example of building a design that was specifically proposed to oppose an enemy class that never appeared. They were large cruisers, being built on a cruiser hull (and almost unturnable because that hull form didn't translate well on the larger scale - the Alaska had a larger turning radius than any carrier or battleship, and almost as large as an oiler).
Weren't they designed to counter the Myoko- and Takao-class cruisers, whose power was somewhat overreported in the US?
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 08:05:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 08:01:47 AM
And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".
Love the idea, but kinda doubt it's veracity given the time of design (maybe the Hood was called this at one point). Got a cite?
I thought everyone knew this.
http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/Specifications.html
etc., etc., etc.
Try googling the phrase "fully armoured battlecruiser" in that specific word combination only. Even I was shocked by the number of sites. Moreover, a number of them state that Hood was known by the same designation, which I did not know and do not recall seeing anywhere before.
Quote from: ulmont on August 24, 2009, 08:26:20 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 08:05:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 08:01:47 AM
And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".
Love the idea, but kinda doubt it's veracity given the time of design (maybe the Hood was called this at one point). Got a cite?
http://books.google.com/books?id=-EfYyhrtOq8C&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=%22fully+armoured+battlecruiser%22&source=bl&ots=9IOn7K6saS&sig=lUttvyMwV57BhmGRWKM-3IPxlB4&hl=en&ei=jpSSSr6rMo-OMYLOqZIK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=%22fully%20armoured%20battlecruiser%22&f=false
http://www.military-genealogy.org.uk/3823/HMS_Vanguard
What this is saying is that there was a design considered (a "fully armored battlecruiser") to use the guns, not that Vanguard herself ever was considered a "fully armored battlecruiser." Nice source, though. Thanks for pointing it out! :cheers:
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2009, 08:47:42 AM
Weren't they designed to counter the Myoko- and Takao-class cruisers, whose power was somewhat overreported in the US?
They were designed to counter the follow-on designs (reputedly of opver 20,000 tons standard) to the Myokos then in service. I suppose that the Takao design was what was actually produced to that rumored design, but Friedman isn't clear on that.
You two never deny yourselves. :D
Makes one almost wish we could invent something to make carriers obsolete so we could go back to battleship days. :hug:
Lets talk about the relative merits of carrier design.
Don't.
You'll have me crying into my pillow thinking of the Maltas and CVA01. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 08:59:32 AM
I thought everyone knew this.
http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/Specifications.html
etc., etc., etc.
Try googling the phrase "fully armoured battlecruiser" in that specific word combination only. Even I was shocked by the number of sites. Moreover, a number of them state that Hood was known by the same designation, which I did not know and do not recall seeing anywhere before.
There are six google site hits, all but one of them homeboy sites or forums, and the fifth is the book ulmont referred us to, which doesn't make the claim made in the fora that the British themselves rated Vanguard a "fully armored battlecruiser." None of my British warship design books make that notation, either.
I rather suspect that someone is misreading ulmont's book, and passing on the news in several fora. The Royal Navy's web site says Vanguard was a battleship.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2009, 02:58:52 PM
Lets talk about the relative merits of carrier design.
Interesting factoid: the British considered their armored-deck carriers to be failures in WW2 because the deck armor contained the explosions of bombs that penetrated the deck, and actually caused more damage to the ship than would have been suffered had the armored deck been one deck lower, as was American practice.
Seems like you would need a lot of armor (ie weight) to armor an entire carrier deck sufficiently to stop a bomb from penetrating.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 03:10:11 PM
There are six google site hits
Make sure to use the "u" in "armoured."
Quote from: GoogleResults 1 - 6 of 6 for "fully armored battlecruiser".
Quote from: GoogleResults 1 - 10 of about 2,290 for "fully armoured battlecruiser".
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 03:12:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2009, 02:58:52 PM
Lets talk about the relative merits of carrier design.
Interesting factoid: the British considered their armored-deck carriers to be failures in WW2 because the deck armor contained the explosions of bombs that penetrated the deck, and actually caused more damage to the ship than would have been suffered had the armored deck been one deck lower, as was American practice.
Not quibbling with your statement, but how does deck armour contain the explosion? I thought it would deflect it upwards. I don't know much about deck armour. :D
Quote from: Alatriste on August 24, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 03:23:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2009, 06:55:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on August 23, 2009, 05:34:02 AM
QuoteBritish BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.
:weep:
It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore. Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.
To the best of my knowledge the Rodney was the only BB to sink another BB during WWII. :contract:
Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.
Plus, a bunch of old U.S. battleships combined to sink some Japanese BBs at Surigao Strait.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 03:36:51 PM
Not quibbling with your statement, but how does deck armour contain the explosion? I thought it would deflect it upwards. I don't know much about deck armour. :D
As I, a non engineer, understand it.
When the bomb penetrates the deck armour prior to detonation (as the heavier bombs do) the deck armour tends to contain the force of the blast in the hangar, increasing the damage. Additionally, as a closed hangar design the blast cannot escape laterally, so detonations in the hangar actually lead to warping of the hull.
Quote from: ulmont on August 24, 2009, 03:22:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 03:10:11 PM
There are six google site hits
Make sure to use the "u" in "armoured."
Quote from: GoogleResults 1 - 6 of 6 for "fully armored battlecruiser".
Quote from: GoogleResults 1 - 10 of about 2,290 for "fully armoured battlecruiser".
So there, Grumbler! If you Americans could only spell properly... :P
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 03:36:51 PM
Not quibbling with your statement, but how does deck armour contain the explosion? I thought it would deflect it upwards. I don't know much about deck armour. :D
As I, a non engineer, understand it.
When the bomb penetrates the deck armour prior to detonation (as the heavier bombs do) the deck armour tends to contain the force of the blast in the hangar, increasing the damage. Additionally, as a closed hangar design the blast cannot escape laterally, so detonations in the hangar actually lead to warping of the hull.
I see. So as I understand it, this is a function of deck armour actually not stopping the bomb from penetrating and thus, perversely, containing the explosive force in a sensitive area (the hangar)?
Warspite:
Yes.
Grumbler:
I'm doing something rude here, although I'm copying in full, including the identity of the poster on the other forum.
QuoteRe: Battleship Vanguard Armor
by Karl Heidenreich on Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:59 am
Thanks to José I had to stop my reading on Friedman and pick up Raven & Robert`s "British Battleships" to learn about Vanguard. And, I must admitt, I`m begining to fall in love with this ship. Beautiful in a Hood way.
Vanguard was born from a Memo, dated March 3 1939 in which the Naval Staff looked a little bit concerned that their building program was not to be ready for the RN to stand both against Germany and Japan. The estimate they had for March 1944 was:
British Fleet capital ships in Home Waters: 10
Germany: 7 + 3 Deutschlands (5 new capital + 2 Schanhorsts)
British Fleet capital ships in Far East: 12 (2 Lions included + a lot of rusty aging ships)
Japan: 16 (including 4 Yamatos plus Nagatos, Kongos, etc.)
The Naval Staff knew that new 16" guns would be the critical path (in the building program) to have new ships ready. They expected them to be ready at the end of 1944 or early 1945. But they had in store 4 15-inch twin turrets from the Courageous and Glorious. Modernized they expected them to had some 25 more years.
The ship that would carry them, in the Memo, was estimated to be 40,000 tons and 30 knots without making any subtancial sacrifice in protection and would be a fully "armoured battlecruiser". (This is interesting because Vanguard would reach 30,3 knots with "just" 132,950 SHP whilst other contemporary new designs needed in excess of 200,000 SHP to reach similar speeds).
The protection was similar to the King George V except Vanguard had a thinner main belt and the splinter protection was more extensive. The 14 inch belt armour was capable of withstand a 15 inch AP shell up to 15,000 yards. The splinter protection was modified after Bismarck and PoW action at DS. Then, at that glorious episode Bismarck`s 15" did penetrated PoW below the belt but didn`t explode. So, in order to prevent splinters from such a hit, penetrating the magazines (A-ha-ha! ) it was approved, on August 15, 1941, to fit a 1 1/2" inch NC armour to the longitudinal bulkheads of the main and secondary magazines in several British ships: Vanguard, DoY, Anson and Howe (It`s interesting to research if such a provision was taken in other allied ships). That increased weight in 80 tons.
Another provision was taken fto prevent loss of buoyancy and water-plane area, forward and aft the citadel, as a result from splinter damage. So they added a 2 1/2" inch and 2 inch NC armour to the ship`s side, between lower and middle decks, forward and aft of the main belt extensions, and a 1 inch bulkheads within this area. This "gave protection against bombs or shells exploding on the armoured-deck and rupture of the ship`s unarmoured structure above, by blast and splinters."
For underwater protection the system was similar to KGV Class, but as a result from PoW`s sinking the designers decided to increase the height of the longitudinal bulkheads "that formed the three groups of compartments outboard of the protective bulkhead. Thus, instead of terminating at lower-deck level, they were extended up to the middle-deck, and provided greatly improved su-division behind the armour near the waterline."
Armour weights:
Belt........................4,666 tons
Bulkheads................ 516 tons
Barbettes.................1,500 tons
Main deck................4,153 tons
Lower deck (forward)... 362 tons
Lower deck (aft)........ 578 tons
Additional bulkheads... 75 tons
Conning tower.......... 44 tons
Director towers......... 31 tons
Splinter belt ends...... 218 tons
Oil jacket bulkheads... 1,375 tons
Splinter protection
for cordite handing
rooms.................... 626 tons
Funnel protection...... 52 tons
Splinter protection for
bulkheads between
lower and middle
decks...................... 443 tons
Protection rings.......... 80 tons
Armour gratings.......... 24 tons
Bullet proof protection
for bridges................ 110 tons
Protection to 5,25 inch
turrets.................... 17 tons
Armour backing......... 40 tons
TOTAL: 15,000 tons
So far, this is the information that regards the armour of this incredible and beautiful vessel, the last BB ever built.
Kind regards."Tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
that here obedient to their laws we lie.
Karl Heidenreich
Supporter
Posts: 2804
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
E-mail
Anyway, although I do not have the book, it appears that the reference is from British Admiralty memos, originally. Although I tend to lurk around the warship sites, Raven & Roberts is quoted as a source for battlship data almost as much as Breyer is.
And having looked at the prices for second hand copies of Raven & Roberts book from Amazon (as it doesn't seem to be in print at the moment) I guess I will not be remedying my lack until I have bestirred myself to get a new job.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2009, 08:47:42 AM
Weren't they designed to counter the Myoko- and Takao-class cruisers, whose power was somewhat overreported in the US?
They were designed to counter the follow-on designs (reputedly of opver 20,000 tons standard) to the Myokos then in service. I suppose that the Takao design was what was actually produced to that rumored design, but Friedman isn't clear on that.
One wonders how effective the unusual Japanese heavy cruiser designs were at any rate. With the inefficiency of their main armament, and the inherent vulnerability of so many turrets forward on a relatively small hull, you'd think they wouldn't perform quite as advertised. Then again, wacky armament layouts were natural back when the Japanese won their great naval victory.
They had ocean spirits guiding their weaponry. :yes:
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 05:12:17 PM
Anyway, although I do not have the book, it appears that the reference is from British Admiralty memos, originally. Although I tend to lurk around the warship sites, Raven & Roberts is quoted as a source for battlship data almost as much as Breyer is.
There is no doubt that the British initially contemplated building a battlecruiser using the turrets. However, the Vanguard was not what they had in mind - they wanted something 10,000 tons lighter. The Vanguard battleship design grew out of the Admiralty realization that the battlecruiser they had in mind was not going to be good enough.
I have never seen anywhere anything authoritative to the effect that the British "commonly referred to the Vanguard as a "fully-armoured battlecruiser" - though the idea of the FPBC went back to the
Hood design.
The vanguard was, in fact, an upgrade of the KGV class (with its comprehensive deck armor), not the abortive 1939 battlecruiser design.
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2009, 07:03:14 PM
One wonders how effective the unusual Japanese heavy cruiser designs were at any rate. With the inefficiency of their main armament, and the inherent vulnerability of so many turrets forward on a relatively small hull, you'd think they wouldn't perform quite as advertised. Then again, wacky armament layouts were natural back when the Japanese won their great naval victory.
The initial designs were horribly unsound structurally, and all of the early heavy CAs had to be rebuilt just to correct all the hull warping that occurred because of their too-flimsy construction. The Takao design performed very well, though, as did the Aobas. It was the intermediate designs (and arguably the Tone and Chikuma) that were of questionable superiority over more conventional designs. The heavy torpedo armament made up for a lot of flaws, though.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 09:36:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2009, 07:03:14 PM
One wonders how effective the unusual Japanese heavy cruiser designs were at any rate. With the inefficiency of their main armament, and the inherent vulnerability of so many turrets forward on a relatively small hull, you'd think they wouldn't perform quite as advertised. Then again, wacky armament layouts were natural back when the Japanese won their great naval victory.
The initial designs were horribly unsound structurally, and all of the early heavy CAs had to be rebuilt just to correct all the hull warping that occurred because of their too-flimsy construction. The Takao design performed very well, though, as did the Aobas. It was the intermediate designs (and arguably the Tone and Chikuma) that were of questionable superiority over more conventional designs. The heavy torpedo armament made up for a lot of flaws, though.
Particularily given the Japanese torpedos.
Still, the Japanese had an odd way of doing things, going into the war. Virtually all of their light cruisers were relics of the early 1920s (aside from the unstable Mogamis), while many of their heavy cruisers were freaks or relics.
Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?
Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 05:01:02 PM
I see. So as I understand it, this is a function of deck armour actually not stopping the bomb from penetrating and thus, perversely, containing the explosive force in a sensitive area (the hangar)?
As far as I understand it, yes, but the questions are two, armoured flight decks and closed hangars. Most Japanese carriers combined closed hangars and wooden flight decks, with 'interesting' results when a bomb exploded in the hangar (blast deflected upwards, wood planks and splinters flying all over the place, unusable flight decks... and perhaps worse still, avfuel gasses floating in the closed hangar)
Returning to armoured flight decks, the problem was not merely weight... carrier hulls needed to include hangar space, and as a result the flight deck was far higher over the water than a battleship's deck. An armoured deck meant stability problems that the British addressed including only one hangar deck, while American and Japanese carriers had two.
The rationale behind the decision was supposedly that British carriers would operate in a far more dangerous environment than the Pacific. In the North Sea and the Mediterranean heavy attacks by land based airplanes would be far more probable, and British admirals decided they needed armoured flight decks no matter the price... but anyway the worst problem with British carriers was IMHO inferior airplanes until late in the war, when they got American models. One is tempted to say than an American or Japanese carrier air group would probably have sunk Bismarck in one attack.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 25, 2009, 02:27:35 AM
One is tempted to say than an American or Japanese carrier air group would probably have sunk Bismarck in one attack.
Not in May 1941 :contract:
Quote from: Ape on August 25, 2009, 02:54:49 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on August 25, 2009, 02:27:35 AM
One is tempted to say than an American or Japanese carrier air group would probably have sunk Bismarck in one attack.
Not in May 1941 :contract:
Why not? Dead men tell no tales :menace:
Now, seriously, I meant each one of those carriers could put in the air more than 50 attack aircraft between dive bombers and torpedo planes, all of them far better than the venerable Swordfish biplanes... Usually I have no use for Alt-His, but sometimes the method is useful.
Quote from: grumbler on August 24, 2009, 09:32:47 PM
I have never seen anywhere anything authoritative to the effect that the British "commonly referred to the Vanguard as a "fully-armoured battlecruiser" - though the idea of the FPBC went back to the Hood design.
Searching through those 2200 references on Google is annoying given the lack of sources cited. So I've asked as close as I can get to experts* and will get back to you.
*well, at least one of them is an author of books on warships.
Quote from: Threviel on August 24, 2009, 11:59:31 PM
Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?
Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.
Not in the 1940s they weren't. Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: Threviel on August 24, 2009, 11:59:31 PM
Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?
Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.
Not in the 1940s they weren't. Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.
They weren't built in the '40s, they were built in the very early '20s and they were the best battleships in the world until the late '30s. That's more than any other dreadnought battleship. To claim that they were mediocre ships because they weren't first class after 20 years is a bit tough on them.
Quote from: Threviel on August 25, 2009, 11:44:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: Threviel on August 24, 2009, 11:59:31 PM
Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?
Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.
Not in the 1940s they weren't. Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.
They weren't built in the '40s, they were built in the very early '20s and they were the best battleships in the world until the late '30s. That's more than any other dreadnought battleship. To claim that they were mediocre ships because they weren't first class after 20 years is a bit tough on them.
That would very much depend on the criteria you are using to define 'the best'.
Moreover, your statement is inaccurate, as the Iowa class has remained the most powerful battleship ever built for almost 70 years now.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Threviel on August 25, 2009, 11:44:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: Threviel on August 24, 2009, 11:59:31 PM
Speaking of naval history forums. Anyone know any good ones concerned with the age of sail?
Oh, and Nelsol and Rodnol were the worlds most powerful battleships a longer time than any other battleship. I would say that they were quite good.
Not in the 1940s they weren't. Their low speed was an impediment, even in the 1930s, but once the fast battleships started to show up in the late 30s, they were pushed into a niche.
They weren't built in the '40s, they were built in the very early '20s and they were the best battleships in the world until the late '30s. That's more than any other dreadnought battleship. To claim that they were mediocre ships because they weren't first class after 20 years is a bit tough on them.
That would very much depend on the criteria you are using to define 'the best'.
Moreover, your statement is inaccurate, as the Iowa class has remained the most powerful battleship ever built for almost 70 years now.
My criteria would be most useful perhaps. They may not have been the fastest, but they packed a hell of a punch and had decent armor.
Pfft, Vanguard would lick Iowas ass without breaking a sweat :bowler:
Or more seriously I meant the most powerful dreadnought battleship for the longest period of time whilst dreadnought battleships were considered the most important capital ship by significant portions of navy employees. Or 1905-1940ish.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 25, 2009, 04:24:30 AM
Why not? Dead men tell no tales :menace:
Now, seriously, I meant each one of those carriers could put in the air more than 50 attack aircraft between dive bombers and torpedo planes, all of them far better than the venerable Swordfish biplanes... Usually I have no use for Alt-His, but sometimes the method is useful.
The American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41. Now the torpedoe planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly. Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak, while the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak.
The torpedoe hit on Bismarck IRL was a once in a lifetime hit and the only real damage to the ship was to it's rudders.
Japanese naval aviators though could very likely have sunk the Bismarck, good planes (Kates) and a high degree of experienced pilots.
And do anyone know if the American airborne torpedoes had the same problems as the Submarine or destroyer launced torpedoes?
Quote from: Threviel on August 25, 2009, 01:34:20 PM
My criteria would be most useful perhaps. They may not have been the fastest, but they packed a hell of a punch and had decent armor.
Useful depends on the situation. Looking at their contemporaries, they were all similarily armed, although with 8 tubes instead of 9. However, the Colorados had a better armour layout, while the Nagatos could run rings around them. Speed is useful in that it allows one to control the terms of the engagement.
QuotePfft, Vanguard would lick Iowas ass without breaking a sweat :bowler:
Rather unlikely. Even assuming that the British had fire control equal to that possessed by the Americans, the 16"/50 cal. was a much better weapon than the 15" Mk. I.
QuoteOr more seriously I meant the most powerful dreadnought battleship for the longest period of time whilst dreadnought battleships were considered the most important capital ship by significant portions of navy employees. Or 1905-1940ish.
I don't see how that's much of an achievement, considering the distorting nature of the Washington and London treaties. I suppose you could call them the best by virtue of them being the last battleships built.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 02:18:58 PM
I suppose you could call them the best by virtue of them being the last battleships built.
Precisely.
Quote from: Threviel on August 25, 2009, 02:23:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 02:18:58 PM
I suppose you could call them the best by virtue of them being the last battleships built.
Precisely.
But that's not necessarily true. They were superb convoy escorts though. Even better than the R-class.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2009, 02:58:52 PM
Lets talk about the relative merits of carrier design.
The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked
Chinese Korean monkey balls.
Please discuss.
Quote from: Drakken on August 25, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.
Please discuss.
It's like Indians mounting a horse from the wrong side?
In summary of the below -
It appears that when they were being designed the Vanguard (and, I am surprised to discover, the KGVs as well) were referred to as "armoured battlecruisers", occasionally as "fully armoured battlecruisers". These are official admiralty documents from the Ship's covers, which are available for the majority of 1920s and 1930s British warships. However, in service they seem to have always been described as battleships. This could indicate that terminology changed in the 1940s, or, more likely, that the design teams used different terminologies to the Admirals commanding the fleets. Or possibly, different elements within the design teams used different terminologies.
However, you are wrong on one minor point, Grumbler - it is certainly a 40000+ ton Vanguard type ship that is being referred to as a "fully armoured battlecruiser", not some putative 30000 tonne vessel.
QuoteSee Raven and Roberts British Battleships of World War Two, page 321. There they quote ADM1/10141, Design on of 15-inch gun battleship, 1939, Public Records Office. It's a long text, but contained therein is this paragraph:
A ship mounting 15-inch guns on a displacement of about 40,000 tons could probably be given a speed of about 30 knots without making any substantial sacrifice in protection and although not quite so powerful as our 16-inch gun ships when lying in the battleline, she would be of inestimable value as a fully armored battlecruiser:
(a) To detach in pursuit of Japanese 12-inch gun cruisers raiding our Eastern Trade routes.
(b) To counter Japanese 8-inch gun cruisers in battle.
(c) To operate in Indian and Australian waters before the arrival of our Fleet in the Far East, such a ship would be very appropriate for the Royal Australian Navy to take over.
The quote also notes this document was signed by the Director of Plans, 3/3/39.
QuoteThe design studies for the ships that turned into the KGVs were occassionally referred to (especially early on) in official documents as "armoured battlecruisers" (also occurs in the Ships Covers) and Vanguard was also similarly referred to. "Fully" Armoured was much less often used, and both KGVs and Vanguard were normally referred to as "Battleships".
QuoteA Ship's Cover is a file that contains all the paperwork that is related to the design of a warship and to its subsequent modification, repairs, battle damage, modernizations etc. If a study is being made of a specific class of ship, consulting the Ship's Cover is the primary source of reference for how and why that ship ended up the way she did.
Quote from: Drakken on August 25, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.
Please discuss.
Since the only effect of the design change on the superstructure was probably to increase the number of crashes due to pilot error, then indeed this one part of these ships "sucked monkey balls". I wouldn't condemn the entire ship based on such a minor flaw, however. Akagi in particular as rebuilt was a fine carrier.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 25, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: Drakken on August 25, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.
Please discuss.
Since the only effect of the design change on the superstructure was probably to increase the number of crashes due to pilot error, then indeed this one part of these ships "sucked monkey balls". I wouldn't condemn the entire ship based on such a minor flaw, however. Akagi in particular as rebuilt was a fine carrier.
I know, but it is one of the most ineffecient design change on a Carrier that I know of, only beaten by overall design of American "Combustibles, Vulnerables, and Expendables".
Carriers are morally wrong.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 04:53:03 PM
Carriers are morally wrong.
OMGGCARRIERSROVERPWREDNERFDEMLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLL!!! :blush:
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 04:53:03 PM
Carriers are morally wrong.
Assuming that is related to killing a man from a distance where he cannot fight back, that would apply in most instances to battleships as well.
Admit it, you yearn for the period when fighting was up close and personal, when even spears were considered a bit "wishy-washy" and a true man used a sword or an axe...
Quote from: Ape on August 25, 2009, 01:46:58 PM
The American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41. Now the torpedoe planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly. Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak, while the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak.
The torpedoe hit on Bismarck IRL was a once in a lifetime hit and the only real damage to the ship was to it's rudders.
I am curious as to the source of your information for this rather phenomenally inaccurate post. The TBD was no more vulnerable to flak than the Swordfish (and I don't know of any shot down by shipboard flak) and US torpedo tactics were good, and the crews well-trained. At Coral Sea there were some problems with inter-squadron coordination, so that the torpedo bombers attacking Shokaku had to launch from astern at long range, but against the heavily maneuvering Shoho they hit with 7 of 9 torpedoes.
The single torpedo hit on Bismarck was once-in-a-lifetime of you mean that the fact that only one hit was near-miraculous.
QuoteAnd do anyone know if the American airborne torpedoes had the same problems as the Submarine or destroyer launced torpedoes?
They had the same trigger problems (as did many other countries early in the war), but not the submarine torpedo's depth control problems.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 25, 2009, 05:21:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 04:53:03 PM
Carriers are morally wrong.
Assuming that is related to killing a man from a distance where he cannot fight back, that would apply in most instances to battleships as well.
Admit it, you yearn for the period when fighting was up close and personal, when even spears were considered a bit "wishy-washy" and a true man used a sword or an axe...
Not at all. I simply prefer the hierarchical, status-based model of warfare, where dreadnought fights dreadnought. The predatory warfare that aircraft and submarines represent is morally reprehensible.
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2009, 06:26:50 PM
I am curious as to the source of your information for this rather phenomenally inaccurate post. The TBD was no more vulnerable to flak than the Swordfish (and I don't know of any shot down by shipboard flak) and US torpedo tactics were good, and the crews well-trained. At Coral Sea there were some problems with inter-squadron coordination, so that the torpedo bombers attacking Shokaku had to launch from astern at long range, but against the heavily maneuvering Shoho they hit with 7 of 9 torpedoes.
The single torpedo hit on Bismarck was once-in-a-lifetime of you mean that the fact that only one hit was near-miraculous.
Really, the TBDs were faster, although the Swordfish were more maneuverable. However, the bad rap on the Dauntless came mainly out of Midway, and it's not like the Swordfish would have done any better attacking the Japanese fleet without fighter cover.
Besides, Bismarck was hit twice, and the Shoho was an absolute pig when it came to maneouvering.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 25, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: Drakken on August 25, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.
Please discuss.
Since the only effect of the design change on the superstructure was probably to increase the number of crashes due to pilot error, then indeed this one part of these ships "sucked monkey balls". I wouldn't condemn the entire ship based on such a minor flaw, however. Akagi in particular as rebuilt was a fine carrier.
What was the reasoning for changing it, and what was so bad about putting the superstructure on the opposite side,or is it just because it WAS changed is why it's bad?
The Swordfish flew too slow and too low for the Bismarck's anti aircraft guns to shoot anything but too far ahead and too high. Had those advanced Japanese bombers been used maybe the Bismarck's AA could have shot at them?
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 25, 2009, 07:51:54 PM
What was the reasoning for changing it, and what was so bad about putting the superstructure on the opposite side,or is it just because it WAS changed is why it's bad?
The reasoning was that Akagi and Kaga, and also Hiryu and Soryu, could then operate in parallel with their recovery patterns not overlapping (one pattern with aircraft banking in from the left, the other with them banking in from the right.)
Unfortunately, when pilots make a mistake on approach, they tend to try and recover by going left, rather than right, so putting Hiryu's and Akagi's islands on the port side caused far more crashes during aircraft recovery. This became apparent so quickly that Shokaku and Zuikaku were designed from the start as a standard pair of starboard island carriers.
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2009, 04:04:31 AM
The Swordfish flew too slow and too low for the Bismarck's anti aircraft guns to shoot anything but too far ahead and too high. Had those advanced Japanese bombers been used maybe the Bismarck's AA could have shot at them?
I rather doubt that the Swordfish were flying at an altitude of less than ten meters. Mind you, the 105mm wasn't a very good AA gun anyways.
I believe the theory is that the Bismarck's fire control was at fault, rather than the guns themselves; the Swordfish flew below the minimum speed the fire control was able to cope with. :lol:
Quote from: Agelastus on August 26, 2009, 08:09:29 AM
I believe the theory is that the Bismarck's fire control was at fault, rather than the guns themselves; the Swordfish flew below the minimum speed the fire control was able to cope with. :lol:
Ah, well that's alright then. Still, it's not like the Bismarck's AAA suite was the best there was anyways. It would be ironic if the Germans coupled slow-firing, slow-traversing weapons (which would really only be useful against the slowest, most sluggish or most stupid of aircraft) with a fire control system that could only target fast, modern aircraft.
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2009, 04:04:31 AM
The Swordfish flew too slow and too low for the Bismarck's anti aircraft guns to shoot anything but too far ahead and too high.
Source?
Quote from: Agelastus on August 26, 2009, 05:17:38 AM
The reasoning was that Akagi and Kaga, and also Hiryu and Soryu, could then operate in parallel with their recovery patterns not overlapping (one pattern with aircraft banking in from the left, the other with them banking in from the right.)
Unfortunately, when pilots make a mistake on approach, they tend to try and recover by going left, rather than right, so putting Hiryu's and Akagi's islands on the port side caused far more crashes during aircraft recovery. This became apparent so quickly that Shokaku and Zuikaku were designed from the start as a standard pair of starboard island carriers.
You are correct in that the opposite-sided islands (and patterns) were designed for dual-CVBG operations, but I think mis-state the reason the experiment was abandoned. Pilots when making mistakes on approach do not tend to recover by going right or left; they try to recover by going in the direction they were trained to go in. Having carriers with different islands, patterns, and danger bearings required that pilots be trained extensively for the carrier they were to operate from. I have never seen any data supporting the suggestion that
Akagi and
Hiryu suffered more aircraft accidents than
Kaga and
Soryu. What I have seen is data to support the idea that the Japanese realized that modern AA considerations forced carriers to operate far enough apart that patterns didn't overlap even with the islands on the same side, and so, for ease of construction and training, Zuikaku and Shokaku were designed as sisters.
I would be glad to be proven wrong, though (using actual data, though, not message board opinions).
This thread is making we want to go play WitP again.
However, I am confident that feeling could be squashed by going and playing WitP again.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 08:51:16 AM
This thread is making we want to go play WitP again.
However, I am confident that feeling could be squashed by going and playing WitP again.
I thought about buying Shrapnel's War Plan Pacific. Then I couldn't find their download policy and said fuckitall.
I am playing Empire of the Sun tonight.
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2009, 06:26:50 PM
The TBD was no more vulnerable to flak than the Swordfish (and I don't know of any shot down by shipboard flak) and US torpedo tactics were good, and the crews well-trained.
...and how many torpedo hits did the US naval aviators score within the first six months they were involved in against ships fully maneuverable? With their good tactics and well-trained crew?
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2009, 06:26:50 PM
At Coral Sea there were some problems with inter-squadron coordination, so that the torpedo bombers attacking Shokaku had to launch from astern at long range, but against the heavily maneuvering Shoho they hit with 7 of 9 torpedoes.
That's ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. Shoho was a burning wreck from several bomb hits when the Lexington's torpedo squadron made their run. 1st hit was by Lt.Cmd Robert Dixon from Lexingoton's Scout bomber Sq. that hit Shoho in the middle of the flight deck with a 500-pound bomb. Shoho recieved two more 500-pound bombs from that 5-plane squadron, after which the regular dive-bombar squadron hit the Shoho with several 1000-pound bombs that turned Shoho into a burning wreck. THEN the torpedo-squadron ripped her apart....
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2009, 06:26:50 PM
They had the same trigger problems (as did many other countries early in the war), but not the submarine torpedo's depth control problems.
You forgot to mention the Mk.13's tendancy to run to deep <_< In fact, the naval aviators at Coral Sea found that their 'good' tactics coupeled with the problems with their torpedoes made them unable to hit a maneuvearable target, and when they hit their torpedoes failed to detonate.
Quote from: Ape on August 26, 2009, 10:11:08 AM
...and how many torpedo hits did the US naval aviators score within the first six months they were involved in against ships fully maneuverable? With their good tactics and well-trained crew?
Quick count says 8 hits out of 44 launches. As I noted above, the attack against Shokaku was launched from an extremely disadvantageous position (astern) because wing tactics broke down.
QuoteThat's ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. Shoho was a burning wreck from several bomb hits when the Lexington's torpedo squadron made their run. 1st hit was by Lt.Cmd Robert Dixon from Lexingoton's Scout bomber Sq. that hit Shoho in the middle of the flight deck with a 500-pound bomb. Shoho recieved two more 500-pound bombs from that 5-plane squadron, after which the regular dive-bombar squadron hit the Shoho with several 1000-pound bombs that turned Shoho into a burning wreck. THEN the torpedo-squadron ripped her apart....
Actually, Shoho was still maneuvering radically when the torpedo bombers launched. Your account is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. According to
The First Team, Bombing Two began its dive at 1118, and the first torpedo launch was at 1119. Dixon's Scouting Two missed completely, and Scouting Two had ten planes, not five. Shoho's maneuvers ended when Torpedo Two (not Bombing Two) knocked out the steering gear.
The fifteen planes of Bombing Two got two hits. The twelve planes of Torpedo Two got five hits. When the tactics were executed, they obviously worked well.
The bombers and torpedo planes of VS-5, VB-5, and VT-5 scored more hits (probably 3 of 12 for the torpedo bombers) but the ship was already doomed by the bomb and torpedo strikes of Air Wing Two.
QuoteYou forgot to mention the Mk.13's tendancy to run to deep <_<
In fact, none of my sources mention this. <_< Care to cite a source? Is it the same source that had Scouting Two having only five planes and getting three hits? Might not be the best source (but then
The First Team could have it all wrong). I await your source to decide.
QuoteIn fact, the naval aviators at Coral Sea found that their 'good' tactics coupeled with the problems with their torpedoes made them unable to hit a maneuvearable target, and when they hit their torpedoes failed to detonate.
In fact, the naval aviators found that, when the wing tactics were executed as planned, even their crappy weapons could be effective. When not, then they couldn't.
grumbler, you get AE?
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 01:26:49 PM
grumbler, you get AE?
Yeah, and am playing it, slowly. Overall, I like it, but there are some weird design decisions (which I outlined in the thread on AE) which I question.
The overall feel, though, is for a completely different (and better) game than WitP. Whether it is worth the money is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Given the time I have spent on WitP, it is worth it to me. It probably won't be for anyone not a WitP fanatic, though, given that it exacerbates what most would see as WitP's flaws.
I am kind of torn - it does sound like it makes some of the things I did not like about WitP worse. On the other hand, WitP was one of the truly great PBEM wargaming experiences I ahve ever had, warts and all.
The level of tension in that game was incredible. I actually kind of dreaded getting a turn sometimes because an imminent clash could be very stress filled.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 01:40:30 PM
I am kind of torn - it does sound like it makes some of the things I did not like about WitP worse. On the other hand, WitP was one of the truly great PBEM wargaming experiences I ahve ever had, warts and all.
The level of tension in that game was incredible. I actually kind of dreaded getting a turn sometimes because an imminent clash could be very stress filled.
Tell me about it.
In my current PBEM game, reaching December 14th my opponent actually stationed its KB around Johnston Island, most probably to intercept my CVs or, foolishly, to attempt another attack on PH. Also, Lexington ate a torpedo in the groin by a random sub, but remains alive and well nonetheless.
My CVs were returning to PH, I had resisted the envy to go raiding, so I ordered a curvy route to reach behind the islands before entering the port. I spotted the bastard right in time enough to reorder my TFs to the West Coast, and now they are out of reach.
Given my inexperience, it made me shiver down my spine, almost as if I had barely escape a deadly accident. :blush:
BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA. So much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! :P
OMG naval-geek rush on my thread! :D
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 01:40:30 PM
I am kind of torn - it does sound like it makes some of the things I did not like about WitP worse. On the other hand, WitP was one of the truly great PBEM wargaming experiences I ahve ever had, warts and all.
The level of tension in that game was incredible. I actually kind of dreaded getting a turn sometimes because an imminent clash could be very stress filled.
I would think the new version a better PBEM experience, but full of the same nits as the original, with some more added ( patrol sectors, FFS!). Where things were added, they were not added with the idea of making them easy to execute.
Quote from: Tamas on August 26, 2009, 02:01:55 PM
OMG naval-geek rush on my thread! :D
Yeah, we did kinda trash your thread, but you deserved it, posting what you did! :P
I had only a passing interest in Jutland, and DRM killed it for me (and the devs' attitude in their forums).
I'm normally not very squeamish about DRM, can live with online activations, limited amount of installs, or having to "store" a license online if moving to a different machine. But a single player game that has to phone home to the server of a cruddy little company that may go belly up tomorrow? No fucking way.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 02:00:39 PM
BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA. So much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! :P
I wonder where that theory came from? I can't see that anybody here proposed it. Strawman!
(Note, the Bismarck's AA did not constitute the sum total of German AA)
Quote from: Viking on August 26, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
I wonder where that theory came from? I can't see that anybody here proposed it. Strawman!
It appears that your reading comprehension skills in English are not quite up to those in your native language, because you missed these posts:
Quote from: Ape on August 25, 2009, 01:46:58 PM
Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak...
and
Quote from: Agelastus on August 26, 2009, 08:09:29 AM
I believe the theory is that the Bismarck's fire control was at fault, rather than the guns themselves; the Swordfish flew below the minimum speed the fire control was able to cope with. :lol:
So, before you start squealing "strawman!" you'd be better off checking with someone who can read English better than you can.
Quote(Note, the Bismarck's AA did not constitute the sum total of German AA)
I probably don't even need to mention that this is a strawman! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 02:00:39 PM
BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA. So much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! :P
I, too, have heard the claim that the swordfish flew too slowly for the Bismarck's AA guns to track. :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 02:00:39 PM
BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA. So much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! :P
Trying to look up the actual causes of loss in this case, as I know the Luftwaffe was supplying air cover. I don't suppose you have the figures to hand?
As for the Bismarck's AA, eyewitnesses are said to have reported that the Bismarck's AA seemed to be consistently bursting ahead of the attacking Swordfishes. I agree it is only a theory, but it does fit the observable facts in the case of the Bismarck.
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 26, 2009, 03:09:48 PM
I, too, have heard the claim that the swordfish flew too slowly for the Bismarck's AA guns to track. :unsure:
I have heard thousands of claims that proved to be unsubstantiated. I am not saying that Swordfish did not fly too slowly to be tracked, just that I don't believe it until I see something authoritative (since it would be foolish to place a lower bound on relative speed in a tracking computer). Given that the aircraft were nearly on a collision course in a heavy sea, I would thing ship pitch and roll would be an adequate explanation.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 26, 2009, 03:11:49 PM
Trying to look up the actual causes of loss in this case, as I know the Luftwaffe was supplying air cover. I don't suppose you have the figures to hand?
First-person accounts in
The Narrow Sea have all the craft lost to AA.
Quote
As for the Bismarck's AA, eyewitnesses are said to have reported that the Bismarck's AA seemed to be consistently bursting ahead of the attacking Swordfishes. I agree it is only a theory, but it does fit the observable facts in the case of the Bismarck.
Source?
Interesting.
Despite the detailed account I have just read listing FW190s diving on the Swordfish during their torpedo runs, the implication I get from the language used for each shootdown is that German AA got them. Although I do believe the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were carrying a much heavier outfit of light (20mm & 37mm AA) in 1942 than Bismarck was on her last voyage.
Who cares WE WON THE DAMN WAR
Quote from: Agelastus on August 26, 2009, 03:28:18 PM
Interesting.
Despite the detailed account I have just read listing FW190s diving on the Swordfish during their torpedo runs, the implication I get from the language used for each shootdown is that German AA got them. Although I do believe the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were carrying a much heavier outfit of light (20mm & 37mm AA) in 1942 than Bismarck was on her last voyage.
The Swordfish had a fighter escort, which drew off the covering CAP. All six Swordfish made it inside the outer AA defenses, after which it would be unusual 9and very dangerous0 for CAP to try to intervene.
Both had 16x 37mm in twin mounts. Bismarck had 18x 20mm, Scharnhorst 24x 20mm (at that time). I wouldn't call that a "much heavier" outfit (though Prinz Eugen apparently got really beefed up with 20mm in this period, having lots of excess buoyancy).
None of this supports the concept that
QuoteThe American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41. Now the torpedoe planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly. Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak, while the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 03:51:28 PM
None of this supports the concept that
QuoteThe American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41. Now the torpedoe planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly. Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak, while the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak
Not my quote...however, data on whether Swordfish or Devastators were more likely to survive battle damage would be interesting (the original poster appears to be arguing two different things in his post.)
As for the FW190s. the account I have just read lists them as attacking after the CAP had been engaged by ME109s. However, as you say, the account then goes on to list all the shootdowns as being by the flak. It just surprised me, that's all, as a swordfish low and slow on a torpedo run must be one of the easiest things in the world for a high performance fighter to hit.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
Quick count says 8 hits out of 44 launches. As I noted above, the attack against Shokaku was launched from an extremely disadvantageous position (astern) because wing tactics broke down.
My accounts say that Thornhill's torpedo was the first torpdeo to hit Shoho destroying the rudders making her unable to maneuver. So she wasn't exactly fully maneuverable when the rest of the torpedoes ripped her apart was she? It also states that Shoho was at that point steaming into the wind to launch fighters, so she wasn't actually maneuvering.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
Dixon's Scouting Two missed completely, and Scouting Two had ten planes, not five. Shoho's maneuvers ended when Torpedo Two (not Bombing Two) knocked out the steering gear.
Alright I'll concede the point on Dixon, 'Ship Strike Pacific' p.29 by Bruning states that the Sq. made an across beam attack that missed. The part about Dixons Sq being only a 5-plane Sq was my mistake 'Carrier war: aircraft carriers in World War II' p.47 by McGowen had written it so it appeared as if Dixon's Sq was only a 5-plane Sd. Since that was also the source that stated Dixon hit Shoho, I'll disregard as unreliable for the discussion.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
The fifteen planes of Bombing Two got two hits. The twelve planes of Torpedo Two got five hits. When the tactics were executed, they obviously worked well.
Yes, 'when' Why couldn't the Devastators launch anyting but an aft attack on Shokaku the next day? Surely they could just fly around? Right? :shifty:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
In fact, none of my sources mention this. <_< Care to cite a source? Is it the same source that had Scouting Two having only five planes and getting three hits? Might not be the best source (but then The First Team could have it all wrong). I await your source to decide.
'Black Cat Raiders' p.53 by Knott states that 18% of the Mk13 had 'unsatisfactory depth performance' and that only 31 % out 105 tested ran without defects. That does not include the problems with the detonators.
Quote from: Ape on August 26, 2009, 05:18:24 PM
My accounts say that Thornhill's torpedo was the first torpdeo to hit Shoho destroying the rudders making her unable to maneuver. So she wasn't exactly fully maneuverable when the rest of the torpedoes ripped her apart was she? It also states that Shoho was at that point steaming into the wind to launch fighters, so she wasn't actually maneuvering.
All of the torpedoes that hit were in the water by the time the first one hit. I dunno about "your accounts" but The First Team (which covers this attack very extensively, in over eight pages) describes the Shoho as maneuvering to starboard to try to avoid the torpedo attack, which was of no avail because Torpedo Two had split to launch an "anvil attack" on either bow.
And it is rather amusing that you claim somehow that Shoho "wasn't exactly fully maneuverable" when "the torpedoes ripped her apart," given that it was the torpedoes that made her not "exactly fully maneuverable!" :lol:
QuoteAlright I'll concede the point on Dixon, 'Ship Strike Pacific' p.29 by Bruning states that the Sq. made an across beam attack that missed. The part about Dixons Sq being only a 5-plane Sq was my mistake 'Carrier war: aircraft carriers in World War II' p.47 by McGowen had written it so it appeared as if Dixon's Sq was only a 5-plane Sd. Since that was also the source that stated Dixon hit Shoho, I'll disregard as unreliable for the discussion.
So you concede that your "accounts" are not reliable, and (tacitly) that mine are, and yet you don't concede the point that, as Ludstrom notes on page 200 of The First team, "Torpedo Two's strike, the foirst for an American squadron against an enemy carrier, was a masterpiece"? You are going to continue to assert that the Devastator was easily shot down by AA (none lost in this battle to AA)? Don't rely on the Ballantine potted history books. Like the Osprey books, they aren't written by first-water historians because the publishers wouldn't pay the rates a real historian would charge.
QuoteYes, 'when' Why couldn't the Devastators launch anyting but an aft attack on Shokaku the next day? Surely they could just fly around? Right? :shifty:
Have you not been reading my posts? The TBDs had to attack with the bombers - that was the tactic. When the dive bombers attacked Shokaku, the TBDs had to launch, even under unfavorable conditions. They couldn't just "fly around" because this was war, and just "flying around" isn't part of naval tactics.
Quote'Black Cat Raiders' p.53 by Knott states that 18% of the Mk13 had 'unsatisfactory depth performance' and that only 31 % out 105 tested ran without defects. That does not include the problems with the detonators.
I was asking for a source for your claim about "the Mk.13's tendancy [sic] to run to deep." An 18% rate of "poor depth control" (which included many cases of the torpedo running shallow and, in fact, exploding when hitting debris in the water) isn't a "tendency to run deep." I rather suspect that you confused the Mk 13 and the Mk 14 (the sub torpedo which did have a tendency to run deep" and think it hilarious that you added the <_< when it was you ass getting reddened. That the Mk 13 was a crappy torpedo is beyond doubt. That doesn't impact my statement that the American TBD aircrews were well-trained and their tactics sound., and history shows that your assertion that "The American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41" is false, and that "the torpedoe [sic] planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly" is unsupported by anything like real information.
Since all you navaltards trashed this thread, I'm repeating my question:
How is the year old 1916 campaign feature, Tamas? Totally flexible, or what?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
Since all you navaltards trashed this thread, I'm repeating my question:
How is the year old 1916 campaign feature, Tamas? Totally flexible, or what?
Me too wanna know. Me love topic long time.
Quote from: Tamas on August 26, 2009, 02:01:55 PM
OMG naval-geek rush on my thread! :D
Stop whining and fill us with Jutland boom-boom goodness! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
All of the torpedoes that hit were in the water by the time the first one hit. I dunno about "your accounts" but The First Team (which covers this attack very extensively, in over eight pages) describes the Shoho as maneuvering to starboard to try to avoid the torpedo attack, which was of no avail because Torpedo Two had split to launch an "anvil attack" on either bow.
:yeahright: where does it say that the Shoho was maneuvering to starboard?
Quote from: First Team by Lundstrom p.200
As the Shoho headed Southeasterly into the wind, Brett's TBDs drew up near her stern. The 1st Division crossed her stern in a wide arc around her port side, while Hurst's six planes swung to her starboard. Above them, Bombing Two pressed its devastating attack. At 1119, Brett released his torpedo from off the Shoho's port quarter. Fanning out, the remaining TBD pilots curved toward the target, launched their fish, and sheered off to avoid anti-aircraft fire. As each torpedo cut into the water, it threw out a huge splash before (hopefully) righting itself at the proper depth and heading for the target.
Torpedo Two's strike, the first for an American squadron against an enemy carrier, was a masterpiece. Lieut. (jg) Thornhill's fish was the first to slam home. His torpedo struck the Shoho's starboard quarter. The blast half hidden by smoke alreay raised by VB-2's bomb hits. The explosion wrecked both electrical and back-up manual steering systems, forcing the ship to hold to a steady south-easterly heading.
In fact it actually supports what I already have said. 1) Shoho was not maneuvering at the time of the coordinated attack, she was heading into the wind, my sources claim it was to launch planes, yours give no reason. 2) The first torpedo hit made it impossible for her to even try and evade the rest.
My question was:
Quote from: Ape on August 26, 2009, 10:11:08 AM
...and how many torpedo hits did the US naval aviators score within the first six months they were involved in against ships fully maneuverable?
Your answer:
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
Quick count says 8 hits out of 44 launches.
Is then not the correct answer to my question. Care to recount? Or shall I? And since June 7th is six months from December 7th. How many hits were scored at Midway by torpedoes? How many Devastators managed to launch their torpedoes?
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
So you concede that your "accounts" are not reliable, and (tacitly) that mine are, and yet you don't concede the point that,
I conceded that one of my sources was overruled by one of yours, yes because another source verified yours. I do
not concede that
all of the sources I have used are overruled.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
as Ludstrom notes on page 200 of The First team, "Torpedo Two's strike, the foirst for an American squadron against an enemy carrier, was a masterpiece"?
That's an opinion of the author, and shouldn't really be included in the book as it weakens it. He gives no exampels of what exactly is the difference between a masterpiece and a 'merely' successfull torpedo attack. Another real problem with Lundstrom's book, is that he gives no information about what the Japanese side knew and were doing during the Shoho attack,
everything he write is about what the Americans knew and were doing.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
You are going to continue to assert that the Devastator was easily shot down by AA (none lost in this battle to AA)?
Where did I say 'easily shoot down'?
How many made it so far as to even get a chance to be shot down by Flak?
How many planes were damaged due to flak ? How many were written off?
And with sources please.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
Don't rely on the Ballantine potted history books. Like the Osprey books, they aren't written by first-water historians because the publishers wouldn't pay the rates a real historian would charge.
Like First Team? Written in 1984? A book that gives the authors opinions and hardly any insight into the Japanese side, particulary during the Shoho attack?
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
Have you not been reading my posts? The TBDs had to attack with the bombers - that was the tactic. When the dive bombers attacked Shokaku, the TBDs had to launch, even under unfavorable conditions. They couldn't just "fly around" because this was war, and just "flying around" isn't part of naval tactics.
Why were they not in a favourable position then? Oh that's right, they were to
Slow and unable to get into a favourable position, because the Shokaku was actually trying to avoid them, instead of steaming straight ahead.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
I was asking for a source for your claim about "the Mk.13's tendancy [sic] to run to deep." An 18% rate of "poor depth control" (which included many cases of the torpedo running shallow and, in fact, exploding when hitting debris in the water) isn't a "tendency to run deep." I rather suspect that you confused the Mk 13 and the Mk 14 (the sub torpedo which did have a tendency to run deep" and think it hilarious that you added the <_< when it was you ass getting reddened. That the Mk 13 was a crappy torpedo is beyond doubt.
Actually, this is what Dept of Ordnace analysis said about the Mk 13.
36% didn't even start
20% sank
20 % veered to the right or left,
18 % gave unsatisfactory depth performance
2 % ran on the surface
31% gave a satisfactory run
reason for the numbers to be above 100%: Some had more then one defect.
So in effect 19 out of 67 or 28% had 'unsatisfactory depth performance' ie going deep, I'd call that a tendancy (maybe the word has a different meaning in English :unsure: ).
Quote
ten⋅den⋅cy
/ˈtɛndənsi/ [ten-duhn-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
1. a natural or prevailing disposition to move, proceed, or act in some direction or toward some point, end, or result: the tendency of falling bodies toward the earth.
2. an inclination, bent, or predisposition to something: a tendency to talk too much.
3. a special and definite purpose in a novel or other literary work.
I'll concede that the word tendancy was the wrong one and that your English is better then mine. The wording got lost in translation, perhaps the word
slight in before 'tendancy' should have accuratly portraited what I tried to say.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
An 18% rate of "poor depth control" (which included many cases of the torpedo running shallow and, in fact, exploding when hitting debris in the water)
Sources please? Last part sounds more like the problems with the detonators.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
That doesn't impact my statement that the American TBD aircrews were well-trained and their tactics sound., and history shows that your assertion that "The American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41" is false, and that "the torpedoe [sic] planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly" is unsupported by anything like real information.
I'll concede as far as that they could hit a ship steaming straight ahead and not actually trying to avoid torpedo attacks, and that their tactics was sound while performing the above attack. You have not yet shown that they could hit a ship that did try to avoid torpedo attacks, or that their tactics was sound for that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
Since all you navaltards trashed this thread, I'm repeating my question:
How is the year old 1916 campaign feature, Tamas? Totally flexible, or what?
Define flexible. You can create your own task forces and move ships around in it, so is with the default historical task forces of course. Reinforcements are historical. There is mine laying and shore bombardment and merchant shipping (I wish it was abstracted). There are submarine and zeppelin TFs but they do not participate in tactical battles
I will continue this game tonight btw and give you an update. Plan is:
-escape the british fleet
-repair my remaining ships
-finish off the rest of the Britihs BCs and thus force the AI to divide the Grand Fleet
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 04:08:03 AM
Define flexible. You can create your own task forces and move ships around in it, so is with the default historical task forces of course. Reinforcements are historical. There is mine laying and shore bombardment and merchant shipping (I wish it was abstracted). There are submarine and zeppelin TFs but they do not participate in tactical battles
That's what I want to know: so, we can pretty much do what we want with the Task Forces and sorties throughout the year?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2009, 05:45:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 04:08:03 AM
Define flexible. You can create your own task forces and move ships around in it, so is with the default historical task forces of course. Reinforcements are historical. There is mine laying and shore bombardment and merchant shipping (I wish it was abstracted). There are submarine and zeppelin TFs but they do not participate in tactical battles
That's what I want to know: so, we can pretty much do what we want with the Task Forces and sorties throughout the year?
Yes. A reviewer said that no GC plays the same way twice because the AI mixes its play as well, but I haven't been able to confirm that.
Quote from: Ape on August 27, 2009, 04:04:37 AM
:yeahright: where does it say that the Shoho was maneuvering to starboard?
:yeahright: What difference does it make which way she turned?
QuoteIn fact it actually supports what I already have said. 1) Shoho was not maneuvering at the time of the coordinated attack, she was heading into the wind, my sources claim it was to launch planes, yours give no reason. 2) The first torpedo hit made it impossible for her to even try and evade the rest.
This quote does
not say that Shoho was headed into the wind at the time of the torpedo attack, and in fact supports my position completely. You rather dishonestly omit the sentence at the top of page 200 which says exactly what you say is untrue:
QuoteIzawa saw the TBDs closing from his starboard quarter, but other than order a turn to starboard, he could do nothing.
What are "your sources," BTW? You keep claiming to have these sources, but when compared to
The First Team they always seem to come out as wrong. You then conceded the point, and make up some other whiopper, which in turn gets smacked down.
Your source appears to be your ass.
QuoteIs then not the correct answer to my question. Care to recount? Or shall I? And since June 7th is six months from December 7th. How many hits were scored at Midway by torpedoes? How many Devastators managed to launch their torpedoes?
How many hits were scored by Swordfish against fully maneuverable targets in the first six months of World War Two? Aagin, what difference does this make? My point has been made, and yours refuted. US Naval Aviators could, indeed, hit "a barn from the inside" in 1941/42.
QuoteI conceded that one of my sources was overruled by one of yours, yes because another source verified yours. I do not concede that all of the sources I have used are overruled.
Again, what are those sources?
QuoteThat's an opinion of the author, and shouldn't really be included in the book as it weakens it. He gives no exampels of what exactly is the difference between a masterpiece and a 'merely' successfull torpedo attack. Another real problem with Lundstrom's book, is that he gives no information about what the Japanese side knew and were doing during the Shoho attack, everything he write is about what the Americans knew and were doing.
Yes, this is called "writing the book you are writing." Since you were just quote-mining it from Google Books, you don't understand it. But that's okay. It still gives the best account of the attack on the Shoho I have seen, and the purpose of the book is moot to this discussion.
QuoteWhere did I say 'easily shoot down'?
So you are going to try to weasel out of " the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak" and say that you didn't mean that they were easy to shoot down? Okay. Whatever. It doesn't help your argument.
QuoteHow many made it so far as to even get a chance to be shot down by Flak?
At Coral Sea, all of them.
QuoteHow many planes were damaged due to flak ? How many were written off?
In the strike against the
Shoho, none of 24. Against
Shokaku, one damaged out of 20.
QuoteAnd with sources please.
Nope. I am not playing this game. You
give sources, or don't ask for them.
QuoteLike First Team? Written in 1984? A book that gives the authors opinions and hardly any insight into the Japanese side, particulary during the Shoho attack?
No,
not like real history books like
The First team, which covers its subject (even if it doesn't include unrelated material you think it should). I dunno what the publication date (not the "written in" date, which I suspect was over several years) has to do with the validity of
The First Team. Something bad happen to you in 1984 that scarred you emotionally?
QuoteWhy were they not in a favourable position then? Oh that's right, they were to Slow and unable to get into a favourable position, because the Shokaku was actually trying to avoid them, instead of steaming straight ahead.
Yes, of course they were slow, and of course they couldn't get into favorable positions without cooperation from the dive bombers. The debate here isn't whether they were fast, but whether they could "hit a barn from the inside." Clearly, the
Shoho attack showed that their tactics were sound, and the
Shokaku attack showed how fragile those tactics were.
QuoteActually, this is what Dept of Ordnace analysis said about the Mk 13.
36% didn't even start
20% sank
20 % veered to the right or left,
18 % gave unsatisfactory depth performance
2 % ran on the surface
31% gave a satisfactory run
reason for the numbers to be above 100%: Some had more then one defect.
So in effect 19 out of 67 or 28% had 'unsatisfactory depth performance' ie going deep, I'd call that a tendancy (maybe the word has a different meaning in English :unsure: ).
In English, "unsatisfactory depth performance" means running shallower
or deeper than the set depth (or both, at various times in the run). You claim that you have information that shows that the Mk 13 had a tendency to run deep, and you haven't produced it (the BuOrd - not "Dept of Ordnance," which reference alone makes me doubt whatever your source is - report does not do this). In English, we call trying to pretend data says what we want it to say rather than what it says "intellectually dishonest." And when one does so using insulting emoticons and is exposed, we call that in English "getting your fanny reddened."
QuoteSources please? Last part sounds more like the problems with the detonators.
Nope. No more sources from me until you start naming some sources (like the one claiming
Shoho was not maneuvering under Torpedo Two's attack at the Battle of the Coral Sea).
QuoteI'll concede as far as that they could hit a ship steaming straight ahead and not actually trying to avoid torpedo attacks, and that their tactics was sound while performing the above attack. You have not yet shown that they could hit a ship that did try to avoid torpedo attacks, or that their tactics was sound for that.
Since the Lundstrom book describes exactly that, and you have
utterly failed to provide
any evidence that
Shoho was "not actually trying to avoid torpedo attacks," I would say your statement here is pretty much a complete concession. In fact, given that you cannot explain why Shoho wouldn't want to maneuver when attacked by torpedo bombers, I would say you are conceding that your argument is both wrong and counter-intuitive.
Interesting as your drivel back and forth is how does a battle half a year into the war prove how they were able to do things 6 months before the war even started?
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 04:08:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
Since all you navaltards trashed this thread, I'm repeating my question:
How is the year old 1916 campaign feature, Tamas? Totally flexible, or what?
Define flexible. You can create your own task forces and move ships around in it, so is with the default historical task forces of course. Reinforcements are historical. There is mine laying and shore bombardment and merchant shipping (I wish it was abstracted). There are submarine and zeppelin TFs but they do not participate in tactical battles
I will continue this game tonight btw and give you an update. Plan is:
-escape the british fleet
-repair my remaining ships
-finish off the rest of the Britihs BCs and thus force the AI to divide the Grand Fleet
What targets can you attack, beside RN ships? Which objectives can you set?
Perhaps I am wrong, but the German High Sea Fleet is barely more than an oversized fleet-in-being. What can you do if the British refuses the fight, attack British sea coast cities and British merchants in the North Sea? :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
This quote does not say that Shoho was headed into the wind at the time of the torpedo attack, and in fact supports my position completely. You rather dishonestly omit the sentence at the top of page 200 which says exactly what you say is untrue:
QuoteIzawa saw the TBDs closing from his starboard quarter, but other than order a turn to starboard, he could do nothing.
my bolded part is more interesting.
Now using your source: p.199f
11.17 Shoho launches three fighters and turns sharply to port (since this means she is pointing in the wind direction to launch fighters it means south east, or do you dispute this as well?)
11.18 Shoho has completed her circle (as in 360 degrees and is again pointing in the wind direction or do you dispute this as well?) Lundstrom does not give any information after this if Shoho did turn.
11.19 The torpedo squadron launches their torpedoes at Shoho. It does not say at what range, or when the first torpedo detonated. When it did strike, your source says Shoho was locked on a south eastern heading. (or do you dispute this)
As for dishonestly omitting:
QuoteIzawa saw the TBDs closing from his starboard quarter, but other than order a turn to starboard, he could do nothing. The lead torpedo planes had already released their fish.
So how long does it take for a torpedo to reach it's mark? It took 51 seconds for the one that doomed Bismarck, at range of about 750 meters.
Since according to your source it 'only' took the Shoho a minute to make a 360 degree turn, why was the Shoho still on a SE heading after she was struck by the first torpedo? Or don't belive me do the math yourself, 1 kn= 1,852km/h=0,51m/s
So a 40kn torpedo would make just over 20m/s.
So I ask at what range did the american aviators at coral sea launch their torpedoes at the Shoho and when in relation to this did Izawa order that starboard turn? And was it executed? Because from
your source Shoho can't have made that turn that Izawa ordered as it was steaming in the same direction after the attack as before the attack.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
What are "your sources," BTW? You keep claiming to have these sources, but when compared to The First Team they always seem to come out as wrong. You then conceded the point, and make up some other whiopper, which in turn gets smacked down.
I have given you my sources, but sure I can quote it:
Quote from: Ship Strike Pacific by John Bruning p.29
At this point the Shoho's skipper, captain Ishonosuke Izawa, made a critical error. With the SBDs of scouting Two now finished with their dive-bombing runs, a slight lull developed. Doctrine demanded that the bombing and torpedo squadrons go in together after the scouting squadron had supressed the enemy task force. Hamilton's VB-2 had been forced to wait for Torpedo Two's ponderously slow Devastators, which were closing on the Shoho from the southwest.
Thinking he had enough time to launch more fighters form his deck, Izawa ordered the Shoho into the wind. Just as she steadied on a southeasterly course. Torpedo Two's TBDs began streaming around the Shoho's escorting cruisers. They penetrated the screen with ease and then split up to launch an anvil attack. Half of the squadron would strike from the port bow, half from the starboard. Prewar tests had shown this to be the most effective way of striking a moving ship.
I'm not making anything up. When disproven you change your point of view, the above is in no way contradicted by what Lundstrom wrote that was cited above. Infact they support each other quite well since Lundstrom is not concerned of what the Japanese were doing or why.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Your source appears to be your ass.
And you cannot read
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
How many hits were scored by Swordfish against fully maneuverable targets in the first six months of World War Two? Aagin, what difference does this make? My point has been made, and yours refuted. US Naval Aviators could, indeed, hit "a barn from the inside" in 1941/42.
So you continue to attack a moot point? I have conceded that they could hit a straight moving target five months after the war began. Since the original question to my hyperbole was what would have happend if you switch an american carrier for the Ark Royal on May 26th -41. I said they wouldn't hit it, you said yes they would look at Shoho. To which even your sources say was running straight at the moment of the torpedo attack.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Again, what are those sources?
Right now I'm using yours, and even they support what I am saying.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Yes, this is called "writing the book you are writing." Since you were just quote-mining it from Google Books, you don't understand it. But that's okay. It still gives the best account of the attack on the Shoho I have seen, and the purpose of the book is moot to this discussion.
No it's called opinion-based history writing. Had Lundstrom wrote 'a text-book example of a well co-ordinated strike' with a citation or quote from example the contemporary training manual I would have been okey with. As it is me as a reader will have to take it at face-value that this strike was a 'masterpiece'. And what differantiates this particular example from other torpedo strikes that were 'merely' succesfull? Can I as a reader know that, just by reading this book ?
For the record, I went down to the local library and borrowed 'First strike'. But what differance would it make where I get the book from? The book says the same thing.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
So you are going to try to weasel out of " the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak" and say that you didn't mean that they were easy to shoot down? Okay. Whatever. It doesn't help your argument.
No I stick with it, I
never said that the Devastators were easy to shoot down, only that due to their speed and lack of maneuverability that they were easy to hit. The rest are your assumptions of what I said.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
QuoteHow many made it so far as to even get a chance to be shot down by Flak?
At Coral Sea, all of them.
So 44 at Coral Sea? And at Midway?
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
No, not like real history books like The First team, which covers its subject (even if it doesn't include unrelated material you think it should). I dunno what the publication date (not the "written in" date, which I suspect was over several years) has to do with the validity of The First Team. Something bad happen to you in 1984 that scarred you emotionally?
So it is not important to know what the Japanese were doing? Or knowing? Was the torpedo attack obscured by smoke or fires from the dive bombing?
What is important about the date of publishing? Well it says a lot of things actually. Middle of cold war. Quite a few pilots left alive, sorry American pilots. I could never guess what possible explanation there could be for not asking questions and taking 'facts' at face value, facts like the first American torpedo strike in the Pacific war was a 'masterpiece'.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Yes, of course they were slow, and of course they couldn't get into favorable positions without cooperation from the dive bombers. The debate here isn't whether they were fast, but whether they could "hit a barn from the inside." Clearly, the Shoho attack showed that their tactics were sound, and the Shokaku attack showed how fragile those tactics were.
Thank you for conceding that the Devastators were slow. In fact they were so slow that they couldn't keep up with the turning radius of Shokaku. Thus my 'slow and wallowing pig' comment.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
In English, "unsatisfactory depth performance" means running shallower or deeper than the set depth (or both, at various times in the run). You claim that you have information that shows that the Mk 13 had a tendency to run deep, and you haven't produced it (the BuOrd - not "Dept of Ordnance," which reference alone makes me doubt whatever your source is - report does not do this).
I have given you the source for this, and if it is the 'Bureau' instead of 'Department' then that was my mistake in not re-checking what I am writing, particulary since the translation of Bureau is not used when talking about government agencies in Swedish. Still I
have given a source regarding the reliability of the Mk.13, it was orignially taken from "U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II" by Lt. Cmdr. Buford Rowland, USNR, and Lt. William B. Boyd, USNR, no page number given.
And if "unsatisfactory depth performance" could mean that it is running shallower, what does the 2 % ran on the surface mean? Is the surface to shallow and has to get a classifiction of their own? Or has my English failed me again :unsure:
Quoteshal⋅low
/ˈʃæloʊ/ [shal-oh]
–adjective
1. of little depth; not deep: shallow water.
2. lacking depth; superficial: a mind that is not narrow but shallow.
3. taking in a relatively small amount of air in each inhalation: shallow breathing.
4. Baseball. relatively close to home plate: The shortstop caught the pop fly in shallow left field.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
In English, we call trying to pretend data says what we want it to say rather than what it says "intellectually dishonest."
:yeahright: and when you ignore the other sides arguments, sources and still refuse to listen to them we call it beeing an ass.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
And when one does so using insulting emoticons and is exposed, we call that in English "getting your fanny reddened."
:yeahright: now what is it you say in English about turnabout?
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Nope. No more sources from me until you start naming some sources (like the one claiming Shoho was not maneuvering under Torpedo Two's attack at the Battle of the Coral Sea).
Did and done so above. From your source nontheless.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Since the Lundstrom book describes exactly that, and you have utterly failed to provide any evidence that Shoho was "not actually trying to avoid torpedo attacks," I would say your statement here is pretty much a complete concession. In fact, given that you cannot explain why Shoho wouldn't want to maneuver when attacked by torpedo bombers, I would say you are conceding that your argument is both wrong and counter-intuitive.
Since Lundstrom does
not say this, why should concede? If you actually
read what he writes rather then skimm it you might (well maybe not you but any other reasonable human beeing would) see the point that I am trying to make.I have given an explantion and a source as to why Shoho did not maneuver, and I had done so previously.
Can you actually provide
any sources that claim that Shoho was doing avoidance maneuvering during the torpedo attack that hit her steering mechanisms? Since Lundstrom clearly doesn't.
It is quite obvious that you are debating dishonstly and only read what you think you read. Furthermore you seem only interested in your own opinion in regards to american infallibility during the pacific war. Either that or you're trolling. Now unless you actually cough up any sources that support
your claims, I am done. Good day to you, or what is left of it anyway.
Quote from: Drakken on August 27, 2009, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 04:08:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 26, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
Since all you navaltards trashed this thread, I'm repeating my question:
How is the year old 1916 campaign feature, Tamas? Totally flexible, or what?
Define flexible. You can create your own task forces and move ships around in it, so is with the default historical task forces of course. Reinforcements are historical. There is mine laying and shore bombardment and merchant shipping (I wish it was abstracted). There are submarine and zeppelin TFs but they do not participate in tactical battles
I will continue this game tonight btw and give you an update. Plan is:
-escape the british fleet
-repair my remaining ships
-finish off the rest of the Britihs BCs and thus force the AI to divide the Grand Fleet
What targets can you attack, beside RN ships? Which objectives can you set?
Perhaps I am wrong, but the German High Sea Fleet is barely more than an oversized fleet-in-being. What can you do if the British refuses the fight, attack British sea coast cities and British merchants in the North Sea? :mellow:
Yep I can bombard cities and scavenge around secondary or tertiary british shipping lines (you can highlight these on the map, along with german ones) with my ships or subs. Primary too of course but they are rare and near dangerous waters. The Brits also have a bunch of commerce raiders normally operating west of norway.
I was ahead in VPs before this battle and it has not changed so I think Neil's earlier analysis of this not being such a big defeat holds true.
As a matter of fact, the day when I first posted the royal navy out in numbers (the start of this AAR), was maybe the second day when the victory status line said "germany+++" following a streak of sunk british merchants and torpedo boats with no british reply. I really hope that this was what triggered the British sortie because it would be realistic, by simulating political pressure.
Quote from: Ape on August 27, 2009, 11:20:29 AM
Now using your source: p.199f
11.17 Shoho launches three fighters and turns sharply to port (since this means she is pointing in the wind direction to launch fighters it means south east, or do you dispute this as well?)
Immediately after the Scouting Two attack, the Japanese launched three fighters, or do you dispute this as well?
Quote11.18 Shoho has completed her circle (as in 360 degrees and is again pointing in the wind direction or do you dispute this as well?) Lundstrom does not give any information after this if Shoho did turn.
At 1117 the Shoho turned sharply to port (away from the wind), and then Izawa sighted the torpedo planes and ordered a starboard turn, or do you dispute this as well?
Quote11.19 The torpedo squadron launches their torpedoes at Shoho. It does not say at what range, or when the first torpedo detonated. When it did strike, your source says Shoho was locked on a south eastern heading. (or do you dispute this)
At 1119, after the starboard turn had been ordered, the first torpedo was launched. Lunstrom does NOT say that " Shoho was locked on a south eastern heading." Those are your words, not his. He doesn't give a heading for the ship after either the sharp turn to port at 1117 nor the one to starboard a minute or so later.
QuoteAs for dishonestly omitting:
QuoteIzawa saw the TBDs closing from his starboard quarter, but other than order a turn to starboard, he could do nothing. The lead torpedo planes had already released their fish.
So how long does it take for a torpedo to reach it's mark? It took 51 seconds for the one that doomed Bismarck, at range of about 750 meters.
Since according to your source it 'only' took the Shoho a minute to make a 360 degree turn, why was the Shoho still on a SE heading after she was struck by the first torpedo?
Where are you getting the idea that Lundstrum says that "it 'only' took the Shoho a minute to make a 360 degree turn"? Not only are you putting words in his mouth, you are putting silly ones in. There is no way a carrier could do a 360 degree turn in a minute. Hell, a destroyer couldn't do that!
Lundgren has the Shoho completing two circles in 11 minutes. That is much more reasonable than the numbers you are making up and dishonestly attributing to Lundstrum.
QuoteI have given you my sources, but sure I can quote it:
Quote from: Ship Strike Pacific by John Bruning p.29
At this point the Shoho's skipper, captain Ishonosuke Izawa, made a critical error. With the SBDs of scouting Two now finished with their dive-bombing runs, a slight lull developed. Doctrine demanded that the bombing and torpedo squadrons go in together after the scouting squadron had supressed the enemy task force. Hamilton's VB-2 had been forced to wait for Torpedo Two's ponderously slow Devastators, which were closing on the Shoho from the southwest.
Thinking he had enough time to launch more fighters form his deck, Izawa ordered the Shoho into the wind. Just as she steadied on a southeasterly course. Torpedo Two's TBDs began streaming around the Shoho's escorting cruisers. They penetrated the screen with ease and then split up to launch an anvil attack. Half of the squadron would strike from the port bow, half from the starboard. Prewar tests had shown this to be the most effective way of striking a moving ship.
I'm not making anything up. When disproven you change your point of view, the above is in no way contradicted by what Lundstrom wrote that was cited above. Infact they support each other quite well since Lundstrom is not concerned of what the Japanese were doing or why.
Actually, while Bruning does not contradict Lundstrum, he provides much less detail and does not mention that Izawa had already launched his fighters and turned sharply to port (and had completed another circle) by the time Torpedo Two and Bombing Two began their attacks. While Izawa may have been launching fighters between the attacks, he was not doing so during the combined attack, as Lundstrum makes clear ("The SBDs started pushing over as the Shoho completed her second circle and momentarily lay in the wind axis...). Bruning may have mistaken the launch of the three fighters as a sign that Izawa had "ordered the Shoho into the wind" but I very much doubt that his interpretation is correct - what carrier skipper would, under attack, stop maneuvering? Further, Bruning's assertion that the Shoho was headed southeast and the TBDs were coming up from the southwest flies in the face of the fact that the torpedo bombers approached Shoho from her starboard
quarter. Shoho must have had an easterly heading at that point (consistent with Lundstrum's description but not Bruning's) until she came right after Izawa spotted the planes approaching. Of course, Bruning talks only about what Shoho was doing as the "TBDs began streaming around the Shoho's escorting cruisers" and not what she was doing when the TBDs attacked, so maybe he is simply guilty of a bit of omission. Neither source says what you claim they both say, and Lundstrum says the opposite.
QuoteAnd you cannot read
I can read perfectly well, and can see, for instance, that Lundstrum describes the Shoho completing two complete circles between 1107 and 1118, not one in one minute and one in 10 minutes! :lol:
QuoteSo you continue to attack a moot point? I have conceded that they could hit a straight moving target five months after the war began. Since the original question to my hyperbole was what would have happend if you switch an american carrier for the Ark Royal on May 26th -41. I said they wouldn't hit it, you said yes they would look at Shoho. To which even your sources say was running straight at the moment of the torpedo attack.
Again, Lundstum does not say that
Shoho was on a steady course when the torpedo bombers attacked, so I don't know why you repeat the lie. Lundstrum clearly states that Izawa ordered a turn to starboard..
QuoteRight now I'm using yours, and even they support what I am saying.
Nope. It says the opposite. You can find no quote from Lundstrum that says that
Shoho was on a steady course when Torpedo Two attacked.
QuoteNo I stick with it, I never said that the Devastators were easy to shoot down, only that due to their speed and lack of maneuverability that they were easy to hit.
This is called a weasel. "I only said they were easy to hit, not to shoot down" is a pointless distinction given that you had addressed the TBD in contrast to the Swordfish which you explicitly discuessed in terms of staying in the air. Whatever. You were wrong either way; its just that i would have hped you would man up to your mistake instead of weaseling.
QuoteSo 44 at Coral Sea?
Correct.
QuoteAnd at Midway?
Do your own research, dude!
QuoteSo it is not important to know what the Japanese were doing? Or knowing? Was the torpedo attack obscured by smoke or fires from the dive bombing?
Not for the purposes of the book, no. And given that the torpedo attack started before the first bombs hit, any cover provided by smoke and fires would, of course, be part of the doctrine. The whole idea behind the coordinated attack (one that you thought the US incapable of executing since you claimed they "couldn't hit a barn from the inside") is to present the enemy with these difficulties, and you are trying to make it into a
bad thing! :lol:
QuoteWhat is important about the date of publishing? Well it says a lot of things actually. Middle of cold war.
:huh:
QuoteQuite a few pilots left alive, sorry American pilots.
:huh:
QuoteI could never guess what possible explanation there could be for not asking questions and taking 'facts' at face value, facts like the first American torpedo strike in the Pacific war was a 'masterpiece'.
:huh:
QuoteThank you for conceding that the Devastators were slow. In fact they were so slow that they couldn't keep up with the turning radius of Shokaku. Thus my 'slow and wallowing pig' comment.
Thank you for conceding that the Devastators were slow, and thus my comment that they needed wing tactics to be properly executed in order to be effective.
QuoteI have given you the source for this, and if it is the 'Bureau' instead of 'Department' then that was my mistake in not re-checking what I am writing, particulary since the translation of Bureau is not used when talking about government agencies in Swedish. Still I have given a source regarding the reliability of the Mk.13, it was orignially taken from "U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II" by Lt. Cmdr. Buford Rowland, USNR, and Lt. William B. Boyd, USNR, no page number given.
So you are giving sources and inaccurate transcriptions, and then changing the meaning to match what you want the results to be, and you expect to have any cred at all?
QuoteAnd if "unsatisfactory depth performance" could mean that it is running shallower, what does the 2 % ran on the surface mean? Is the surface to shallow and has to get a classifiction of their own? Or has my English failed me again :unsure:
Running on the surface is a completly different problem than running shallower than expected, or deeper. No source of which i am aware backs your assertion that I
Quoteforgot to mention the Mk.13's tendancy to run to deep <_<
Quote:yeahright: and when you ignore the other sides arguments, sources and still refuse to listen to them we call it beeing an ass.
:yeahright: That is precisely correct. And I think it is pretty clear who is ignoring the other side's arguments and inserting "facts" which the sources do not support.
Quote:yeahright: now what is it you say in English about turnabout?
:yeahright: What we say is "whipping that fanny is fun, but don't ask the guys to turnaround."
QuoteDid and done so above. From your source nontheless.
Nope. Neither source claims this, and Lundstrum directly refutes it.
QuoteSince Lundstrom does not say this, why should concede?
Lundstum describes the starboard turns the Shoho took in the minutes leading up to the attack, and the starboard turn ordered just as the attack commenced. Dunno why you refuse to admit this; it is in as plain an English as you could hope for.
QuoteIf you actually read what he writes rather then skimm it you might (well maybe not you but any other reasonable human beeing would) see the point that I am trying to make.I have given an explantion and a source as to why Shoho did not maneuver, and I had done so previously.
You have failed to provide any explanation for the Shoho's supposed unwillingness to maneuver, despite Lundstrum's descriptions of those maneuvers, and the best you have is a claim that Izawa turned into the wind as the torpedo planes crossed the escort line, despite the fact that this description is completely inconsistent with the facts that:
(1) had
Shoho been headed southeast, the approaching TBDs would have been off her starboard bow (or at worst her starboard beam) and not her quarter;
(2) had the TBDs been off her bow or beam, the second half of the anvil would surely have passed ahead of
Shoho to get into position off her port bow, rather than flying all the way around her stern and then try to fly up her port side to take a position off her port bow; and
(3) the TBDs did, indeed, pass astern of the
Shoho, which means they were off her starboard quarter (exactly as the Japanese and Americans reported), which means that
(4)
Shoho was
not headed southeast when the TBDs started their attack, but rather easterly.
This is precisely consistent with Lundstrum's account.
QuoteIt is quite obvious that you are debating dishonstly and only read what you think you read. Furthermore you seem only interested in your own opinion in regards to american infallibility during the pacific war. Either that or you're trolling. Now unless you actually cough up any sources that support your claims, I am done. Good day to you, or what is left of it anyway.
:lmfao: So, your fanny is getting whipped, you have engaged in wholesale deliberate misreadings of the evidence you have presented in a manner that is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst, and this is all somehow
my fault?
I love the strawman stuff about my "opinion in regards to american infallibility during the pacific war"(sic)! :lmfao: That was the last bit needed to completely discredit your arguments here, and makes one wonder if you were ever arguing here with the honest intention of ferreting out the truth.
Tamas, how about you start an AAR thread?
Yeah these two morons just about ruined this thread.
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2009, 01:34:11 PM
Tamas, how about you start an AAR thread?
The action so far:
Ape and Grumbler have both torpedoed each other and their rudders are jammed. Both are steaming in a circle.
ALLRIGHT FOR FUCK'S SAKE LET ME GET BACK TO MY AAR OKAY?!!!!
After that huge night battle, the Brits did not give up the pursuit. Soon after it, the two battlecruiser fleets bumped into each other in the dark, which resulted in the near total destruction of my BC fleet's escort ships, altough at least I sank more enemy small ships than I lost, but it means the escort numbers for the Scout Fleet will have to be replaced from the local defense forces.
The cruisers of the British BC fleet kept getting into visual contact with my ships but I kept losing them.
Then on the morning of 24th, with my High Seas Fleet paddling east, with the Scout Fleet somewhat to the NE of it, I saw 3 British BCs going flank speed, leaving their escorts behind. A sort of bidding game started: I made my last 3 BBs turn back to stay and shoot at the bastards, but it quickly turned out 4 other BCs were on their way as well, so I sent an other bunch of BBs back. Then my gunmen sucked at aiming so I sent all the BBs back, seeing the chance to finish the British BC fleet off.
Needless to say, the British Grand Fleet arrived as well, and altough I did manage to break contact, I had to get into close quarter fighting between some of my BBs and the BCs.
Summa summarum: I have lost 3 other BBs, but as far as I know, Great Britain has lost all her Battlecruisers!
(I really hope the AI just simply did not want to give up catching me with its BBs because the last couple of BCs did really not have to die)
Location: 183 Kilometers west northwest of Emden
Battle Start: 10:29 A.M., January 24th, 1916
Battle Duration: 5 hours, 30 minutes
Final environment: -3 degrees celsius, precip 0%, wind 4 knots, Sky: cloudy, fog 0%, visibility 11452m.
Sunk German BBs: Hessen, Hannover, Schleswig-Holstein
Sunk British BCs: Indefatigable, New Zealand, Australia, Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible
plus the British destroyer Marne managed to get sunk somehow
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2009, 01:34:11 PM
Tamas, how about you start an AAR thread?
The action so far:
Ape and Grumbler have both torpedoed each other and their rudders are jammed. Both are steaming in a circle.
That sounds... hot
Quote from: Cecil on August 27, 2009, 01:35:43 PM
Yeah these two morons just about ruined this thread.
:lol:
Who the fuck are you?
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 02:50:32 PM
ALLRIGHT FOR FUCK'S SAKE LET ME GET BACK TO MY AAR OKAY?!!!!
Sorry Tamas, I'll keep any further posting of mine in this thread to your AAR, ok?
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 02:50:32 PM
Sunk German BBs: Hessen, Hannover, Schleswig-Holstein
Sunk British BCs: Indefatigable, New Zealand, Australia, Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible
plus the British destroyer Marne managed to get sunk somehow
You weakened the British fleet and made your own stronger at the same time. Those predreadnoughts are terrible.
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 02:50:32 PM
ALLRIGHT FOR FUCK'S SAKE LET ME GET BACK TO MY AAR OKAY?!!!!
If debating to kill time while waiting for your AAR has actually sped up your AAR, that is win-win in classic languish fashion! :cool:
Quote from: Cecil on August 27, 2009, 01:35:43 PM
Yeah these two morons just about ruined this thread.
When you have spent some time here, you will find that these thread drifts are quite common. If that bothers you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Quote from: Neil on August 27, 2009, 07:12:16 PM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 02:50:32 PM
Sunk German BBs: Hessen, Hannover, Schleswig-Holstein
Sunk British BCs: Indefatigable, New Zealand, Australia, Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible
plus the British destroyer Marne managed to get sunk somehow
You weakened the British fleet and made your own stronger at the same time. Those predreadnoughts are terrible.
Agreed. They are like an anchor on the good elements of the fleet.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 08:31:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 27, 2009, 07:12:16 PM
Quote from: Tamas on August 27, 2009, 02:50:32 PM
Sunk German BBs: Hessen, Hannover, Schleswig-Holstein
Sunk British BCs: Indefatigable, New Zealand, Australia, Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible
plus the British destroyer Marne managed to get sunk somehow
You weakened the British fleet and made your own stronger at the same time. Those predreadnoughts are terrible.
Agreed. They are like an anchor on the good elements of the fleet.
Actually, there really isn't much in the way of good elements of the fleet left, since most of the Konigs and Kaisers were sunk. Still, at least the shitty, obsolete engines of the dreadnoughts were somewhat more reliable than those of the predreadnoughts.
Ah so that is why they struggled so much against the British BCs? Thats one thing I dont like in the game: no different designation (like just a single B) for pre-dreadnoughts.
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2009, 12:11:16 AM
Ah so that is why they struggled so much against the British BCs? Thats one thing I dont like in the game: no different designation (like just a single B) for pre-dreadnoughts.
IIRC, they only have 4 11" guns, 2 forward and 2 aft.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2009, 08:30:38 PM
Quote from: Cecil on August 27, 2009, 01:35:43 PM
Yeah these two morons just about ruined this thread.
When you have spent some time here, you will find that these thread drifts are quite common. If that bothers you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I´ve been here quite a few years thank you and you are still the same moronic asshole you were years ago.
Well, that's settled then!
Quote from: Cecil on August 28, 2009, 08:40:22 AM
I´ve been here quite a few years thank you and you are still the same moronic asshole you were years ago.
Hi, Hortlund! I see you haven't changed a bit. :cool:
I expect you will burst into tears and run away again fairly soon. That's always fun.
We have an entire forum dedicated to flaming and all that, lets take it there, shall we?
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2009, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Cecil on August 28, 2009, 08:40:22 AM
I´ve been here quite a few years thank you and you are still the same moronic asshole you were years ago.
Hi, Hortlund! I see you haven't changed a bit. :cool:
I expect you will burst into tears and run away again fairly soon. That's always fun.
I thought Hortlund was bluebook? Or has there been a nickname change? :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2009, 09:20:14 AM
We have an entire forum dedicated to flaming and all that, lets take it there, shall we?
Purple!
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2009, 10:31:56 AM
I thought Hortlund was bluebook? Or has there been a nickname change? :unsure:
Not sure. This one is very quick with the unprovoked personal insults, and I don't think it is Dorsey, so I just guessed.
If someone cared, they could check it out, I suppose. But this speculation belongs on the main forum.
To the topic, Tamas, I think the "B" designation for pre-dreads is entirely a modern gaming fiction. The USS
Indiana, for instance, is BB-1 (though not designated as that when she was built) and is a pre-dreadnought. I thus find it unsurprising that some game manufacturers are unaware of the "single-B for predreadnought" convention.
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2009, 12:11:16 AM
Ah so that is why they struggled so much against the British BCs? Thats one thing I dont like in the game: no different designation (like just a single B) for pre-dreadnoughts.
Any battleship with triple expansion engines is garbage. They're fragile, tempermental and slow. I'm not fond of the armament layout of the first two German dreadnought classes either. It's more wasteful than anything the Japanese ever tried, and vulnerable to boot.
Oh man, the RN is a bunch of pussies.
I managed to cut off a couple of CLs and obliterate them, but the rest of the RN turned tail and ran.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 02:13:23 PM
Oh man, the RN is a bunch of pussies.
I managed to cut off a couple of CLs and obliterate them, but the rest of the RN turned tail and ran.
Being a pussy allows the RN to win the war.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 02:13:23 PM
Oh man, the RN is a bunch of pussies.
I managed to cut off a couple of CLs and obliterate them, but the rest of the RN turned tail and ran.
Being a pussy allows the RN to win the war.
That's what makes them gay. Go Kaiser.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 06:09:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 02:13:23 PM
Oh man, the RN is a bunch of pussies.
I managed to cut off a couple of CLs and obliterate them, but the rest of the RN turned tail and ran.
Being a pussy allows the RN to win the war.
That's what makes them gay. Go Kaiser.
The Germans never stood a chance. The disparity in numbers was too great, and the British ships were of higher quality.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 06:32:22 PM
The Germans never stood a chance. The disparity in numbers was too great, and the British ships were of higher quality.
Which is why I'm going to take a different strategy with Germany in the 1916 campaign game.
Is sitting in Kiel harbor a viable strategy?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 06:32:22 PM
The Germans never stood a chance. The disparity in numbers was too great, and the British ships were of higher quality.
Which is why I'm going to take a different strategy with Germany in the 1916 campaign game.
I'll be interested to see your plan.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 07:06:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 06:32:22 PM
The Germans never stood a chance. The disparity in numbers was too great, and the British ships were of higher quality.
Which is why I'm going to take a different strategy with Germany in the 1916 campaign game.
I'll be interested to see your plan.
Honestly, the only alternative I see is--while continuing to convoy raid--is to sortie, sortie, and sortie some more until the Brit comes out of his cave; but to sortie with multiple task forces, and simply try to catch the Brit when he's understrength, and wind up attriting him while dodging the big mothers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 07:16:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 07:06:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2009, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 06:32:22 PM
The Germans never stood a chance. The disparity in numbers was too great, and the British ships were of higher quality.
Which is why I'm going to take a different strategy with Germany in the 1916 campaign game.
I'll be interested to see your plan.
Honestly, the only alternative I see is--while continuing to convoy raid--is to sortie, sortie, and sortie some more until the Brit comes out of his cave; but to sortie with multiple task forces, and simply try to catch the Brit when he's understrength, and wind up attriting him while dodging the big mothers.
Well, you could net some cruisers, and maybe even battlecruisers like that, but unless your opponent is foolish enough to split the Grand Fleet, you'll have a hard time reducing the battlefleet disparity. Also, the ship-to-ship superiority of the Brits, I'd be wary of splitting up the High Seas Fleet.
Still, let me know how it works out.
Years ago I had the Avalon Hill Jutland board game. You'd move the ships using the course change/heading tools the game came with, use range finders, etc. That was fun, though a bit cumbersome to play with battle lines stretched across the floor/table. I can see how this game computerized would be fun stuff.
Quote from: KRonn on August 31, 2009, 01:22:38 PM
Years ago I had the Avalon Hill Jutland board game. You'd move the ships using the course change/heading tools the game came with, use range finders, etc. That was fun, though a bit cumbersome to play with battle lines stretched across the floor/table. I can see how this game computerized would be fun stuff.
Me and my dad always used to play that. We taped off a big section of the basement floor for our legendary battles.
Threads like this make me stay away from the game:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=87565
I'm usually not a pussy when it comes to DRM, but when whether or not the game runs depends on a pygmy sized company's webserver being online all the time, then please count me out.