thedab

Battleships did did nothing in ww2

212 posts in this topic

56 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

1 show great large German surface Navy... (sarcazm)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Seas_Fleet

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

 

 

3. Both attacks caught the defenders by surprise. 

I dunno how you suppose they surprise the French fleet when they told them the exact time they would start attacking. 

looking more on the attacks on French fleet at Dakar,didn't go too well for the RN Battleships,of the two used one was crippled and other damaged,and most of the damaged done to the Richelieu,was by the FAA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, arczer25 said:

which on the other hand was hindered due to versailles and Scarpa Flow... imho the best way to include big ships would be WWI -> (potential) Refits -> WWII anyway

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just battleships did nothing in WW2 means that they don't have to be ingame?

:facepalm:

 

You cannot leave em out! It would be tank battles without heavy tanks... They too are slow and very armoured... 

I think squad of 4 PT boats could take out a battleship...

 

Edited by TyphoonCro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TyphoonCro said:

I think squad of 4 PT boats could take out a battleship...

 

that depends on how long they would be under fire from the BBs secondary batteries

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

that depends on how long they would be under fire from the BBs secondary batteries

Honestly I think a Battleship's AA-suite would be more of a danger to small and nimble PT boats.

 

Take the Tirpitz for example in it's late war modification, you'd have 5x1 20mm, 6x4 20mm and 4x2 37mm autocannons facing the left or right side. The 3x2 150mm and 4x2 105mm secondary batteries plus quad torpedo tubes  are formidable, but they'd still have to rotate slower than a PT boat would be able to move and would suffer from WT reloading time syndrome. They would be better suited against corvettes and upwards.

 

Also the AA guns would usually be loaded with an HE ammo variant, which would be more effective than the generally AP shells of larger naval cannons, i.e. blowing stuff up and setting it on fire is more effective than punching large holes in it (depending on how fast/slow the sinking mechanics work).

 

tirp44.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TyphoonCro said:

So just battleships did nothing in WW2 means that they don't have to be ingame?

:facepalm:

 

You cannot leave em out! It would be tank battles without heavy tanks... They too are slow and very armoured... 

I think squad of 4 PT boats could take out a battleship...

 

That would be like attempting to assault the star destroyer (bristled with defensive turrets) from star wars in a small rag tag group of X Wings.

 

If by some chance the small group of x-wings are not erased within the first half hour, they still have a minimal chance of destroying or even crippling the huge thing alone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kazumi_ said:

That would be like attempting to assault the star destroyer (bristled with defensive turrets) from star wars in a small rag tag group of X Wings.

 

If by some chance the small group of x-wings are not erased within the first half hour, they still have a minimal chance of destroying or even crippling the huge thing alone.

 

Well... Something else springs to mind...

Spoiler

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tirpitz :

 

 - Sitting alone in Norway guaranteed atleast one carrier and minimum of two BBs to sit at Scapa Flow.

 - One erroneous message about its movements caused the convoy PQ-17 to disperse, losing 24 merchant ships in subsequent Luftwaffe and U-boot attacks

 - Destroyed a weather station and a refueling point

 - about 30 aircraft were shot down attacking it

 

I think thats a good record for doing almost nothing.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saltzer said:

Honestly I think a Battleship's AA-suite would be more of a danger to small and nimble PT boats.

 

Take the Tirpitz for example in it's late war modification, you'd have 5x1 20mm, 6x4 20mm and 4x2 37mm autocannons facing the left or right side. The 3x2 150mm and 4x2 105mm secondary batteries plus quad torpedo tubes  are formidable, but they'd still have to rotate slower than a PT boat would be able to move and would suffer from WT reloading time syndrome. They would be better suited against corvettes and upwards.

 

Also the AA guns would usually be loaded with an HE ammo variant, which would be more effective than the generally AP shells of larger naval cannons, i.e. blowing stuff up and setting it on fire is more effective than punching large holes in it (depending on how fast/slow the sinking mechanics work).

 

 

i don't even say anything about US BB (hell even some US cruiser/destroyers) with dozen 40mm and 20mm guns.

 

also about rotation time, its not 100-200m distance, PT boat would have barely few cone degree per second and most of AA guns are designed to track much faster aircraft's.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

Tirpitz :

 

 - Sitting alone in Norway guaranteed atleast one carrier and minimum of two BBs to sit at Scapa Flow.

 - One erroneous message about its movements caused the convoy PQ-17 to disperse, losing 24 merchant ships in subsequent Luftwaffe and U-boot attacks

 - Destroyed a weather station and a refueling point

 - about 30 aircraft were shot down attacking it

 

I think thats a good record for doing almost nothing.

 

but how many U-boats could have been made instead, and how big was the garrison guarding her,and she needs to used fuel everyday,to keep her generator going

lol 30 aircraft lost,I think not,it's about 10.

and when she went down,about a 1000 men went with her.

and two battleships siting in Scapa Flow,is not much lost.as you can't hunt U-boats with them

at the end of the day,she was more of a drain of resources.

Edited by thedab
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thedab said:

but how many U-boats could have been made instead, and how big was the garrison guarding her.

lol 30 aircraft lost,I think not,it's about 10.

and when she went down,about a 1000 men went with her.

and two battleships siting in Scapa Flow,is not much lost.as you can't hunt U-boats with them

at the end of the day,she was more of a drain of resources.

You overestimate U-Boats. If you threw 100 more U-Boat's into the Atlantic in late 41 it still wouldn't be enough to starve England out.

Also I like how you bring up casualties when the U-Boat arm had a casualty rate of 75%, the highest out of every other service branch from any nation during the second world war.

U-Boats main weapon was the deckgun which required it to surface to use, U-Boats of the period weren't advanced enough to tackle a convoy fully submerged with only torpedos. While on the surface U-Boats were vulnerable to any amount of damage, a Battleships would absolutely decimate a U-Boat.

Was the Tirpitz a drain of resources? Looking at the OKM's original objectives and goals when concerning the Kriegsmarine, no.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, thedab said:

but how many U-boats could have been made instead, and how big was the garrison guarding her,and she needs to used fuel everyday,to keep her generator going

lol 30 aircraft lost,I think not,it's about 10.

and when she went down,about a 1000 men went with her.

and two battleships siting in Scapa Flow,is not much lost.as you can't hunt U-boats with them

at the end of the day,she was more of a drain of resources.

wrong

in attacks on Tirpitz the British lost:

1 Blenheim

1 Whitley

1 Stirling

2 Albacores

2 Wellingtons

12 Halifaxes

15 Barracudas

1 Hellcat

1 Corsair

and 1 Lancaster

32 aircraft

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, YanderesFTW said:

You overestimate U-Boats. If you threw 100 more U-Boat's into the Atlantic in late 41 it still wouldn't be enough to starve England out.

Also I like how you bring up casualties when the U-Boat arm had a casualty rate of 75%, the highest out of every other service branch from any nation during the second world war.

U-Boats main weapon was the deckgun which required it to surface to use, U-Boats of the period weren't advanced enough to tackle a convoy fully submerged with only torpedos. While on the surface U-Boats were vulnerable to any amount of damage, a Battleships would absolutely decimate a U-Boat.

Was the Tirpitz a drain of resources? Looking at the OKM's original objectives and goals when concerning the Kriegsmarine, no.

well the men in the U-boats did something,and it post 42 when the U-boat arm casualty rate went high.

 

you could have more U-boats in med,how many more do you need,to make Operation pedestal a failure.

 

a few more U-boat in Arctic sea in 41,and the battle for Moscow may have been lost.

and the Battle of the Atlantic was more of a close run thing,than you think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thedab said:

well the men in the U-boats did something,and it post 42 when the U-boat arm casualty rate went high.

 

you could have more U-boats in med,how many more do you need,to make Operation pedestal a failure.

 

a few more U-boat in Arctic sea in 41,and the battle for Moscow may have been lost.

and the Battle of the Atlantic was more of a close run thing,than you think.

what the heck are you talking about, Moscow?
Moscow is in the middle of the continent
U-boots and any supply ships they might've sunk in the arctic are irrelevant

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but how many U-boats could have been made instead,

 

None.

 

Considering the time frame, not even Hitler would have the balls to overshoot the limits inposed by ww 1 treaties on submarines by hundred or more that was demanded on top of existing numbers by Donitz.

 

Even if he did, he did not have the shipyards to build them. Unless of course the one dry dock and supporting facilities used to build Tirpitz could somehow multiply the U-boot production from 10 or so U-boot shipyards,

 

Quote

and how big was the garrison guarding her.

 

 

Considering the garrison guarding Norway, meaningless.

 

Quote

lol 30 aircraft lost,I think not,it's about 10.

 

 

There were half a dozen operations against Tirpitz when it was sitting in those fjords alone.

 

Not only did it cost dozens of aircraft, but also several midget subs.

 

Quote

and when she went down,about a 1000 men went with her.

 

 

75% of all U-boot crews are sitting on the bottom of atlantic ocean to this day.

 

 

Submarine warfare, as conducted by Kriegsmarine, was completely cost-ineffective. be it from this point of view, or any other.

 

 

Edited by Ulatersk
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hunter12396 said:

wrong

in attacks on Tirpitz the British lost:

1 Blenheim

1 Whitley

1 Stirling

2 Albacores

2 Wellingtons

12 Halifaxes

15 Barracudas

1 Hellcat

1 Corsair

and 1 Lancaster

32 aircraft

and wrong as 4 of them types were not used

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thedab said:

and wrong as 4 of them types were not used

 

really a simple google search can stop you making a fool of yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_attacks_on_the_German_battleship_Tirpitz

Wikipedia isn't exactly a source but for this its good enough

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hunter12396 said:

what the heck are you talking about, Moscow?
Moscow is in the middle of the continent
U-boots and any supply ships they might've sunk in the arctic are irrelevant

 

a lot stuff the Russian used in the battle for Moscow,came from Brition

8 hours ago, Hunter12396 said:

 

really a simple google search can stop you making a fool of yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_attacks_on_the_German_battleship_Tirpitz

Wikipedia isn't exactly a source but for this its good enough

but it not right as some of the bombing don't show uphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wilhelmshaven_in_World_War_II

and you miss the point,it's air attacks as it sitting in a fjord in Norway.

 

and one more thing,bombers don't take long to build

                                                                         

 

Edited by thedab
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thedab said:

 

a lot stuff the Russian used in the battle for Moscow,came from Brition

but it wrong

 

alright, since this thread has only been you going "I'm right and you're all wrong, I don't care about proof otherwise" I guess we can be done here

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thedab said:

looking more on the attacks on French fleet at Dakar,didn't go too well for the RN Battleships,of the two used one was crippled and other damaged,and most of the damaged done to the Richelieu,was by the FAA

Mers El Kebir and Dakar were two different battles. 

 

The only damage to British ships during the battle, was HMS Hood damaging herself while chasing the break out ships. 

 

Richelieu was damaged during Mers el Kebir, but also during the same battle, battleship Bretagne was blown up by the fire from British 15" guns, Dunkerque was damaged so badly that she had to be beached to stop her sinking, and Provence was sunk in the port. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Mers El Kebir and Dakar were two different battles. 

 

The only damage to British ships during the battle, was HMS Hood damaging herself while chasing the break out ships. 

 

Richelieu was damaged during Mers el Kebir, but also during the same battle, battleship Bretagne was blown up by the fire from British 15" guns, Dunkerque was damaged so badly that she had to be beached to stop her sinking, and Provence was sunk in the port. 

 

so far from can find,the Dunkerque was damaged by torpedos launch by destroyers,and the Richelieu was damaged by torpedos launch by FAA aircraft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

 

None.

 

Considering the time frame, not even Hitler would have the balls to overshoot the limits inposed by ww 1 treaties on submarines by hundred or more that was demanded on top of existing numbers by Donitz.

 

 

 

 

well he did overshoot treaties limits by long way by building any of the bismarck-class and Scharnhorst-class Battleships

 

8 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75% of all U-boot crews are sitting on the bottom of atlantic ocean to this day.

 

 

Submarine warfare, as conducted by Kriegsmarine, was completely cost-ineffective. be it from this point of view, or any other.

 

 

the big U-boat losses are post 43,

                                                                         Uboats sunk smaller.jpg

                                                                                              as you can see herehttp://uboat.net/fates/losses/chart.htmand here

 

at the outbreak of war,Germany only had 50 sea going U-boat,what if it had another 50 in 39?http://uboat.net/ops/combat_strength.html

and if you see what a successful campaign the USN had with it's subs in the pacific,think what a more numerous U-boat arm would have done in 1940https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_submarines_in_the_Pacific_War

9 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

 

 

Even if he did, he did not have the shipyards to build them. Unless of course the one dry dock and supporting facilities used to build Tirpitz could somehow multiply the U-boot production from 10 or so U-boot shipyards,

 

 

 

 

 

 

how long do think it take to build a U-boat?there were 19 shipyards that built 1100 u-boats from 39 to 45

the Tirpitz was 42,900 tonnes,that's hell of a lot of steel, a Type VIIc U-boat was only 769 tonnes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the OP's assessment of the impact of battleships on the second world war is based upon...

...the impact of German battleships on the second world war.

 

Never mind what anyone else did with them...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.