Announcement

**MKSheppard** · May 18, 2007, 18:00

And before you say:

"They're all sane! Americans aren't as insane as Germans!"

I raise you:

That monster is 150 tons and armed with a 155mm gun.

**Tattila the Hun** · May 19, 2007, 03:29

One would think it would be horribly vulnerable on that joint.

And most of the heavy tank concepts are silly only with 20/20 hindsight.

**Sandman** · May 19, 2007, 03:39

Yeah, the joint is going to be a real devil even to maintain. I'm guessing that a decent tank can have most its moving parts replaced in the field. Good luck replacing that joint.

**Patroklos** · May 29, 2007, 10:36

The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor".

Hmmmm, his tank crews may have disagreed with him as they were being torn apart by PzIV armamant, let alone V's and VI's.

And why do you need heavier armor just to have a bigger gun? A heavy tank is not given the "heavy" designator due to armor alone.

And looking at those pictures, I guess we never learned the lesson of sloped armor...

**Lonestar** · May 29, 2007, 18:10

Originally posted by Patroklos

And why do you need heavier armor just to have a bigger gun? A heavy tank is not given the "heavy" designator due to armor alone.

That's the kind of thinking that led to Battlecruisiers, which led to the sinkfest known as Jutland.

And looking at those pictures, I guess we never learned the lesson of sloped armor...

Only needed if we aren't going to put extra armor on. You'll note most Western(and Soviet!) tanks had rounded turrets even after the war.

**Patroklos** · May 29, 2007, 18:23

That's the kind of thinking that led to Battlecruisiers, which led to the sinkfest known as Jutland.

Yeah, such a sinkfest I can count the loses on both sides with two hands...

But I see your point, I guess thats why we went with the small gun and inadaquate armor the whole war.

Only needed if we aren't going to put extra armor on. You'll note most Western(and Soviet!) tanks had rounded turrets even after the war.

Why not thick and sloped?

**Lonestar** · May 29, 2007, 19:18

Originally posted by Patroklos

Yeah, such a sinkfest I can count the loses on both sides with two hands...

Yeah, and all the dead capital ships were battlecrusiers, those "less armor, big guns" you like so much.

we didn't really battle thick and sloped armored tanks until after the D-Day landings...the M4 was generally adequate to fight the PzKpfw. IV's we were fighting, and it was assumed that the Panthers were going to as rare as Tigers(big mistake, obviously).

Once it blew up in our face, we went screaming for another tank, and the M26 was deployed earlier than intended(although not as early as it could have been) and performed well against German Panzers.

**Patroklos** · May 30, 2007, 09:11

Yeah, and all the dead capital ships were battlecrusiers

Nope

You may want to investigate the turrents of those battlecruisers before coming to conclusions (ammo handling).

And they weren't so useless off the coast of South America....

**Lonestar** · May 30, 2007, 13:52

Originally posted by Patroklos

Nope

Yep. One, count 'em, one Pre-dreadnought was the sole non-Battlecruisier capital ship that was sunk at Jutland. Unless you are defining crusiers as capital ships.

You may want to investigate the turrents of those battlecruisers before coming to conclusions (ammo handling).

That the only modern capital ships sunk were BCs is telling enough.

And they weren't so useless off the coast of South America....

The Battle of Coronel involved armored cruisiers, not Battlecrusiers. If you are refering the Battle of the Falklands, that's a poor example, as there was no exchange between capital ships, just two BCs(and 5 crusiers, as well as a pre-dreadnought) vs. 5 crusiers. You wanna tell me what happens when guys with bigger, longer ranged guns go after guys without big guns, DISBO?

Whenever a BB and a BC fought, the BC invariably came out the worst for wear.

As for tanks, you're basically talking about Tankdestroyers, which were not very successful for the Western Allies, as they normally carried a gun bigger than a American tank(although often smaller cailber than german panzers) without the armor. They did not have a good run. Unless they got the drop on the panzers they were pretty well boned.

**Patroklos** · May 30, 2007, 14:51

Yep. One, count 'em, one Pre-dreadnought was the sole non-Battlecruisier capital ship that was sunk at Jutland. Unless you are defining crusiers as capital ships.

Of course cruisers are capital ships.

That the only modern capital ships sunk were BCs is telling enough.

Not so much, since your are maintaining that thin armor is what did her in, not the type of propellent the British guns used...

and, vitally important, the British cordite propellant tended to blow up their ships when hit by incoming shellfire rather than 'burn' in German ships, and the British magazines were not well protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jutland

Now admittedly thinner armor makes reaching the cordite easier, but you should note that a modern battleship and Beatty's flagship, the Lion, very nearly suffered the same fate. Turret design was the problem, regardless of armor.

EDIT: Have to take that back, Lion was a BC too.

The Battle of Coronel involved armored cruisiers, not Battlecrusiers. If you are refering the Battle of the Falklands, that's a poor example, as there was no exchange between capital ships, just two BCs(and 5 crusiers, as well as a pre-dreadnought) vs. 5 crusiers. You wanna tell me what happens when guys with bigger, longer ranged guns go after guys without big guns, DISBO?

Whenever a BB and a BC fought, the BC invariably came out the worst for wear.

So the BC did have their uses, namely being fast enough to run down commerce raiders and having the firepower to take them out handily.

Seems like the problem is using them incorrectly. It was stupid to pit a BC agains a BB in the line, and not what they were designed for.

**Lonestar** · May 30, 2007, 16:37

Originally posted by Patroklos

Of course cruisers are capital ships.

No they aren't, BCs, BBs, and CVs are.

Unless you are saying that a CG is a capital ship.

Not so much, since your are maintaining that thin armor is what did her in, not the type of propellent the British guns used...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jutland

Now admittedly thinner armor makes reaching the cordite easier, but you should note that a modern battleship and Beatty's flagship, the Lion, very nearly suffered the same fate. Turret design was the problem, regardless of armor.

EDIT: Have to take that back, Lion was a BC too.

Oh? And it was the re-turreted Hood that crapped out because of "poor Turret design" as well?

So the BC did have their uses, namely being fast enough to run down commerce raiders and having the firepower to take them out handily.

True

Seems like the problem is using them incorrectly. It was stupid to pit a BC agains a BB in the line, and not what they were designed for.

Untrue. The whole Idea behind BCs was that they would be fast enough to avoid shells, and that speed would be their armor. Not chasing down smaller combatants. That they were thrown into the Line without second thought confirms this.

**Dr Strangelove** · June 2, 2007, 14:08

We know now that the firms that made the armor for British warships in the early 20th century ruthlessly cut corners, using an inferior grade, brittle steel that simply was not suited for use as armor.

Battle cruisers were primarily designed with the idea that with their superior speed they could dart out in front of the main battle line and cut across the enemy's course, thus "capping the T". The enemy would be forced to turn away, thus exposing them to a pounding by the British line of battleships. At the time of WW1 the Royal navy manueverd solely in a "line ahead" formation, meaning that the direction of the fleet was determined by the lead ship. Their squadrons had to maintain the linear formation at all times. The Germans had practiced and become proficient at simultaneous manuevers, so if necessary the entire line could turn together. This manuever obviously required on radio signals. The British had attempted to adopt this manuver prior to the war, but do to some accidental collisions had abandoned it. The German ability to mauver simultaneously made a crucial diiference during the encounters between the main battle fleets during WW1. It is one of the primary reasons why the British were unable to make use of their superior numbers, and that the use of the battlecruiser squadron led to disaster. When the British battelcruisers darted ahead the Germans simply turned away, their battleships sailing parallel instead of in line, before the cruisers reached an advantagious position, then the German line would turn again into a linear formation where they then had the advantage on the battlecruisers.

**Patroklos** · June 4, 2007, 08:01

No they aren't, BCs, BBs, and CVs are.

Unless you are saying that a CG is a capital ship.

We don't count CGs now because our current capital ships (a class that did not exist in WWI) has 20 times the gross tonage of a CG.

How much heavier is an armored but small gunned CA than an unarmored bug gunned BC? Were not the Prinz Eugen, Sharnhorst, and Geniesnau capital ships in WWII?

Oh? And it was the re-turreted Hood that crapped out because of "poor Turret design" as well?

The Hood was not a BC so I don't see your point. Unless your saying that BB armor was insufficient to stop shells too, so why bother with armor at all?

That they were thrown into the Line without second thought confirms this.

They weren't thrown into the main line, they were trying to do what Dr. Strangelove describes.

**Lonestar** · June 4, 2007, 09:29

Originally posted by Patroklos

We don't count CGs now because our current capital ships (a class that did not exist in WWI) has 20 times the gross tonage of a CG.

How much heavier is an armored but small gunned CA than an unarmored bug gunned BC? Were not the Prinz Eugen, Sharnhorst, and Geniesnau capital ships in WWII?

Wikipedia specifically excludes cruisers as a type of capital ship, and describes the Graf Spee and Scheer as unique "cruisier" capital ships.

(So does answers.com and about.com)

The Hood was not a BC so I don't see your point.Unless your saying that BB armor was insufficient to stop shells too, so why bother with armor at all?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but..

HMS Hood was a Battlecruisier. Again, googling "HMS Hood" will get you a bunch of hits that refer to it as a BC.

They weren't thrown into the main line, they were trying to do what Dr. Strangelove describes.

And in practice they exchanged fire with BBs and got sunk as a result. Like how TDs were designed to not exchange fire with tanks, but kill them right out, and in practice TDs with lighter armor were so useless that the Army discontinued their use after WW2.

Announcement

**** the Maus

**** the Maus

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment