I'm With Stupid IX: Results

[Agathon]

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

correction at the first battle of jutland , at the second they where send to swim with the fish , indefinatly

What are you talking about?

At the Battle of Jutland (the only one people care about) in 1916 the Grand Fleet completely outmaneuverd the High Seas Fleet and poured massed gunfire on them, crossing their "T" twice.

Nevertheless, the British lost the Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible and numerous other smaller ships. The Germans lost the Lutzow and a handful of others including the Pommern which was a pre-dreadnought design. Severely battered German ships refused to sink, including, famously, the Seydlitz.

The acknowledged reasons were that the British ships and materiel were of poorer design.

[Shi Huangdi]

Booyah!!

1 0wNz0rs !!!!111

[Panag]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because only one of us is a moron (hint - it ain't me).



The thruth?



Which one? There wasn't enough damage to sink her according to the last I heard.



No one disputes that she sank, panag.



Not in a sea battle against other heavy ships.



Shows how much you know then.

hi ,

you really show what respect you have for yourself and others , ........


the thruth is that the bismarck was sinking before she got put out of her misery , .......

and as for the tirpitz , the chickens where so afraid to loose her since she had the same short comings as her sistership to put her out on sea , ......

she lost against a couple divers with midgets , ........ yeah , great ship , ...... so great they had to put a sand barrier under it after it was repaired with concrete in order for it to float , ......

yeah , great ship that sits on a bunch of sand , that aint a ship you know , ......

and before you start to trow without no reason what so ever things to other peoples head , ..... certain military us schools with great reputation have online fact databases , ..... and they really are not THAT hard to find , ........

bye

[Kassiopeia]

Hmm, a Zylka rule of sorts might be a good idea. Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything, but it's getting out of hand. (And you used it this time too and I didn't decide to join in on the fun, so I'm doubly irritated. Ha.)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Quite well, when it could steer.



They couldn't control the ship, that made them a sitting duck against two British capital ships who could attack as they pleased. It's irrelevant.

Inability to steer should not prevent gunners from being able to target, Agathon. Notice how those big guns rotate independently of the ship.

The Iowas had better sensors and radar equipment than Bismarck. Considering the difficulties Bismarck had targeting, she would be in for a rough time against ships that have better targeting equipment and can fire from further away with better accuracy.

Bollocks. I've already said that I don't put much store in statistical comparisons. Effective design and real combat effectiveness is what matters. I doubt that a country with virtually no experience in mass ship to ship combat could beat up on the machines of countries that knew what they were doing.

And I don't put much stock on your hypotheticals relying on fanciful what-ifs that you imagine. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that Bismarck fared terribly in the battle with the KGV and Rodney, and blaming the rudder (which is still indicative of a design flaw) is a crutch, since she still should have been able to hit targets. But her less-than-optimal armor design made her vital systems vulnerable, so she was crushed. Smashed. Pulverized.

OK - but we were taliking about who'd beat whom.

And the Bismarck got beaten badly in combat. Did that ever happen to an Iowa-class ship? Nope.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Agathon


What are you talking about?

At the Battle of Jutland (the only one people care about) in 1916 the Grand Fleet completely outmaneuverd the High Seas Fleet and poured massed gunfire on them, crossing their "T" twice.

Nevertheless, the British lost the Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Invincible and numerous other smaller ships. The Germans lost the Lutzow and a handful of others including the Pommern which was a pre-dreadnought design. Severely battered German ships refused to sink, including, famously, the Seydlitz.

The acknowledged reasons were that the British ships and materiel were of poorer design.

learn before you post , .....

learn the truth before you insult people , .....

and maybe if you dont insult them , they can teach you how what where and when , when it comes to history and facts , .......

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So instead of comparing the ships based on their numbers, what is there? Oh wait there's:

A country which proved itself in ship to ship naval combat as able to design efficient warships versus one that did not.

That's why US ships from WWII can't be taken seriously. They never proved themselves in that style of combat - indeed I can't think of any US ship that did in a classical dreadnought-style engagement.

Agathon, you have to compare the ships based on the physical construction if you're going to talk about "greatest ever built." Why is it ridiculous to compare statistics like which ship had better armor, better design, were faster? Those are factors in how the ships will perform in combat!

But they don't tell the whole story. That one ship has thicker armour than another doesn't matter a jot if it has other design flaws. People thought the Hood was the bees-knees and we all know what happened to her.

Ship-to-ship, Bismarck got squashed. She was great at short-range battles, like were fought in WWI. Long range, she was weak.

Based on what?

Since Iowa-class ships excel in long-range combat, Bismarck would be toast, and likely wouldn't be able to land a shot.

None of which attests to how it would fare against Iowa-class ships, which could shoot at it before the Bismarck could shoot back, thanks to greater range.

Wouldn't make any difference if they couldn't hit her.

So the Bismarck's inability to steer caused her expert gunnery crew to be inable to land any shots?

Think about it. Is it easier to fire from a comparatively steady platform or one over which there is limited control. Add to that the fact that the Royal Navy came at her from all sides, she couldn't move and the crew knew they were all doomed and what do you have?

BTW - I found the website you copied this stuff from. So much for your knowledge - you plagiarist.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Agathon


Greatest battleship.

And it shows what you know, you moron.

you really have a problem dont you , ........

have that one checked out before you post about ships , .....

[Method]

Originally posted by panag

now , post your rediculous insults somewhere else , .......

cause if you know a bit of history , ...... then you would read that particlar word out loud in front of a mirror , .......

the greatest battleship build

this really is a good joke

ack! No hi, have a nice day

is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Method


ack! No hi, have a nice day

is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

you did not know , ........


ps ; have a great weekend

[MichaeltheGreat]

Diving on the wreck of the Bismarck shows it was holed repeateadly from both sides by RN BB's.

It was going down either way - whether scuttled, or as a target for the Royal Navy, didn't really matter.

It's AAA performance was abysmal, and it easily could have been killed by Iowa class BB's, but that's not really a fair comparison, since the Iowa class was a later design.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
A country which proved itself in ship to ship naval combat as able to design efficient warships versus one that did not.

That's why US ships from WWII can't be taken seriously. They never proved themselves in that style of combat - indeed I can't think of any US ship that did in a classical dreadnought-style engagement.

Therein lies the problem for Bismarck. Dreadnaught-style engagements, for which she was designed, were fought at close ranges. The Iowa ships could fire accurately from a much greater distance. All the great gunners in the world won't help you when your opponent can you hit from a further distance than you can hit it. It's really easy, Aggie.

But they don't tell the whole story. That one ship has thicker armour than another doesn't matter a jot if it has other design flaws. People thought the Hood was the bees-knees and we all know what happened to her.

In other words, your side is based totally on luck. Way to go!

And what design flaws in the Iowa-class have you mentioned? I've brought up plenty of design flaws in the Bismarck, not the least of which were her rudder, her armor, and her sensors. In what design area are Iowas worse than Bismarck? Until now, you've been relying on the crew!

Based on what?

Her design.

Wouldn't make any difference if they couldn't hit her.

Why wouldn't they be able to hit Bismarck? She was a wider target. The Iowas had longer-range guns that were more accurate and better sensors and radar. Bismarck couldn't just dodge shells like a fighter, Ags.

Think about it. Is it easier to fire from a comparatively steady platform or one over which there is limited control. Add to that the fact that the Royal Navy came at her from all sides, she couldn't move and the crew knew they were all doomed and what do you have?

You still have to explain why your ubergunners couldn't hit anything. At least ONE shot. Come on admit it.

BTW - I found the website you copied this stuff from. So much for your knowledge - you plagiarist.

Wtf? I quoted the material from the web site, so it's not like I claimed it as my own. Here, I'll quote you from a page dedicated to the Bismarck:

http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO_Bismarck_p3.htm

XII. Bismarck vs. Iowa
We are often asked how Bismarck or Tirpitz would fare against an Iowa-class battleship. Generally speaking, this question is easy to answer as follows:
"Not very well!"
The American Iowa-class battleships were armed with powerful, long-ranged 16-inch guns which fired a heavy 2,700-pound armor-piercing shell and benefited from a superior gunfire control system. Furthermore, the Iowas were capable of 33-35 knots maximum speed. Their higher speed and superior horizontal armor protection would have given the Iowas an immense tactical advantage in a long-range gunnery engagement. Their high speed would have granted the Americans choice of engagement and they would have been able to dictate the range at which to do battle. At long ranges, the American 16-inch guns could penetrate Bismarck virtually at will, while the German 380mm gun could only hope for combat system kills against the always vulnerable superstructure of any battleship. U.S. Navy doctrine in the period leading up to World War II was to attain great gun accuracy at long range, for that is where American admirals wanted American battleships to engage a potential foe. By 1944, with their clear advantage in radar technology and superior fire-control systems, the advantage in gunnery engagements would have been conferred even more markedly on the U.S. ships.
The German ships were admirably suited to a close range battle, such as might be expected in the pre-radar era in the North Sea. At close ranges, the German ships might have had a slight advantage over their American counterparts.

The side protective system of the U.S. ships was superior to that on the German warships, although both classes were equally vulnerable to the type of torpedo hits on the steering gear which doomed Bismarck.

Overall, although one can never predict the outcome of a one-on-one engagement with certitude, it is clear that the odds in any such a confrontation would have substantially favored the American ship.

Find me one naval expert who would favor the Bismarck, and I might consider you having an argument. But every expert analysis I've seen gives the Iowas the easy odds.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Inability to steer should not prevent gunners from being able to target, Agathon. Notice how those big guns rotate independently of the ship.

Don't be stupid. It doesn't matter that the guns could move, how is that going to be of any use when the ship is not stable due to damage? Imagine you are standing on the back of a pickup with a gun trying to hit things. Now imagine the pickup has two flats and can't steer properly.

Get it?

Of course you could stop the ship, but then it would be an absolute sitting duck. It was anyway, fire control in the Bismarck was out of action in no time at all as it was being attacked from all sides and couldn't maneuver.

The Iowas had better sensors and radar equipment than Bismarck. Considering the difficulties Bismarck had targeting, she would be in for a rough time against ships that have better targeting equipment and can fire from further away with better accuracy.

I don't believe any serious author has suggested that the Bismarck's gunnery was anything less than excellent. That's certainly better than something you cribbed off some amateur enthusiast's web site. I don't put much stock in what he says - he thinks the Yamato would beat the Bismarck. That thing was a floating disaster waiting to happen.

And I don't put much stock on your hypotheticals relying on fanciful what-ifs that you imagine. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that Bismarck fared terribly in the battle with the KGV and Rodney, and blaming the rudder (which is still indicative of a design flaw) is a crutch, since she still should have been able to hit targets.

Fine admiral you'd make. Being able to maneuver effectively is a sine qua non for effective naval combat. Moving slowly in a mildly erratic fashion over which you have no control is something else entirely. No ship could survive such a situation.

But her less-than-optimal armor design made her vital systems vulnerable, so she was crushed. Smashed. Pulverized.

Crap. No serious author has suggested this. The Bismarck was pulverised because it could not maneuver and was surrounded by two modern undamaged battleships which could attack it in the manner most favourable to them. It's no surprise the Bismarck was pummelled. It's as if someone nailed your feet to the floor and stood behind you smacking the hell out of you, and then they claimed that you were a lousy fighter.

And the Bismarck got beaten badly in combat. Did that ever happen to an Iowa-class ship? Nope.

Did an Iowa ever go up against a real ship from a real navy as opposed to the Japanese?


panag, you are a raving maniac. You can be the only Apolytoner on my ignore list.

Have a horrible day.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Tuberski


If I ever have a chance to post questions, any answer of Zylka would result in a negative score based on how many answered.

That would cure the "Zylka" spam.

Unless, of course, it was a question about 'poly members....

ACK!

While this might be harsh, I like the idea of making a 'zylka' spam rule.

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Hmm, a Zylka rule of sorts might be a good idea. Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything, but it's getting out of hand.

I agree with Kassiopeia whole heartedly.

Not to offend anyone, but the more the game becomes a zylka spam fest, the less interesting it becomes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Diving on the wreck of the Bismarck shows it was holed repeateadly from both sides by RN BB's.

The last one I saw was the Cameron dive (spectacular pics BTW) they couldn't seem to find that much damage to the hull (caused on the surface). Have there been others since then?

It was going down either way - whether scuttled, or as a target for the Royal Navy, didn't really matter.

That's true, but it was a tough ship - like George Chuvalo was a tough boxer.

It's AAA performance was abysmal, and it easily could have been killed by Iowa class BB's, but that's not really a fair comparison, since the Iowa class was a later design.

Weren't lauched until a couple of years after the Bismarck sank IIRC. But I don't see why the Bismarck couldn't have been fitted with improved radar etc.

I still would rather stand by proven naval experience than mere statistics though.