How #&^%$* are you against an Iowa/NC/SoDak class battleship with radar/computer guided guns.

[Azrael72898 3,025]

No they wouldn't be. They're still different sizes. Shells have a greater dispersion area travel time is longer, etc. It would be harder to hit the Bismarck at 30,000 than the Katori at 15,000. Much harder.

Missing by 5 degrees to the side of the Katori is still missing 5 degrees to the side of the Bismarck, though how far they missed by would differ. Similarly, if the shell dispersion was small enough to hit the Katori, then it would theoretically also hit the Bismarck, assuming range calculations are equally accurate. What I posted in my response to RAMJB proves that; If you draw a straight line from the "firing point" and have it go through the line for the Katori, it will always go through the line representing the Bismarck as well. As far as i know, the trajectory of a shell wouldn't curve sideways in mid air by any notable amount, but correct me if I'm wrong. It's true that it does not take travel time into account, though.

Edit: Forgot to take into account the shells' angle of fall at the different ranges. Whoops.

[OutlawSundown 86]

Japan did have good ships...some were superior than US ships for their respective classes. Battleship wise, I will make it simple and say that the Iowa class and Yamato class are on par. Destroyer wise, i would  put my money on the japanese, aircraft carrier wise, USA takes it. Submarines are on par as well, Heavy cruisers go to japan but light cruisers go to USA. This is my view on how the two countries stack up against each other.

 

 Destroyer? Japanese... no. A group of US destroyers, destroyer escorts and escort carriers held off the Yamato and its entire fleet at Samar. Better yet they were equipped with the mk. 37 Gun Fire Control System and were capable of firing accurately on the move through smoke screens while the Japanese fleet struggled with their optics.  

[General_Sultan 1,228]

 Destroyer? Japanese... no. A group of US destroyers, destroyer escorts and escort carriers held off the Yamato and its entire fleet at Samar. Better yet they were equipped with the mk. 37 Gun Fire Control System and were capable of firing accurately on the move through smoke screens while the Japanese fleet struggled with their optics.  

 

another fanboy with poor info. 

[Enkidu69 1,014]

 Destroyer? Japanese... no. A group of US destroyers, destroyer escorts and escort carriers held off the Yamato and its entire fleet at Samar. Better yet they were equipped with the mk. 37 Gun Fire Control System and were capable of firing accurately on the move through smoke screens while the Japanese fleet struggled with their optics.  

 

People keep forgetting that at Samar "puny" US fleet had 400 planes attacking the "superior" Japanese fleet. That's almost twice as much as Japan had at Midway.

[Madwolf 10,218]

It doesn't make up for the fact that in ship to ship combat the Japanese ships still faired poorly verses inferior vessels in that particular battle.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

It doesn't make up for the fact that in ship to ship combat the Japanese ships still faired poorly verses inferior vessels in that particular battle.

can you testify?

[Enkidu69 1,014]

It doesn't make up for the fact that in ship to ship combat the Japanese ships still faired poorly verses inferior vessels in that particular battle.

 

US fleet was just running away while throwing planes and suicidal destroyers at japanese ships.

 

It's not easy to shoot at the enemy when you have to avoid 50 planes bombarding and torpedoing your ship. They had to make evasive maneuvers all the time.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Madwolf can prove it if he provides accurate statistics on japanese hit rates & shells consumed from that battle instead of waltzing around making up his own versions of storytelling.

 

 

Try not to flame or taunt others.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Traenix

[Madwolf 10,218]

I have no statistical data on the hit rates of the Japanese ships present in the Battle of Samar. I've heard that they didn't perform well, and that is further backed up by the fact that the USN forces weren't wiped out, outside of the aircraft. The American ships faired a bit better, and seemed to have some key hits in the battle, with smaller ships.

 

The performance of the IJN force is understandable given everything going on around them. Not only that but the mean were probably worn raged from the action they had faced earlier, and Admiral Kurita was no exception. His decision to pull back, while not popular in history, was probably the right choice. He saved his fleet from almost certain destruction. Even if they had taken out the American supply ships and delayed the retaking of the Philippines, it would have been a temporary set back for the Americans at that point in the war. All in all, I think he did the right thing, and saved he saved many of his mens lives.

 

Still, the performance of Taffy 3 certainly has it's merits. It could have been destroyed, and Kurita could have continued on to strike at the heart of the American operations in Leyte Gulf, before they themselves were destroyed. The performance of Taffy 3 and the damage they inflicted upon Kurita's fleet, despite being an inferior force, probably weighed on Kurita. As the planes approached from the distant American fleet carriers later in the battle, I'm sure he had his answer as they attacked.

 

Regardless of what you believe about the USN during this period, it is undeniable that the ability of the American destroyers to shoot "blind" behind a thick smoke screen, when the Japanese couldn't see them to fire back as accurately, is a testament to the design of the USN FCS, and was at least a factor in Taffy 3's performance versus the Japanese Fleet. They simply played their strength, against the Japanese Fleet's weakness. While it may not have single handedly won them the battle, it was still a factor in the fleet not being wiped out, and even sinking a few Japanese Cruisers. 

[General_Sultan 1,228]

I have no statistical data on the hit rates of the Japanese ships present in the Battle of Samar. I've heard that they didn't perform well

 

 

"heard" does'n go under credible arguments

 

 

 

 

backed up by the fact that the USN forces weren't wiped out

 

 

the Desron at truk was'n wiped out by multiple battleships. this battle lasted only for a little over an hour. and in it, 4 vessels including 2 small sized DDs were sunk.

 

 

 

He saved his fleet from almost certain destruction

 

 

certain destruction from little CVEs? no one here ran away other then the americans, Taffy 2 ran into the samar brawl and turned around and also ran away, like taffy 3 did

 

 

Still, the performance of Taffy 3 certainly has it's merits. It could have been destroyed

 

 

If the japanese decided to stick around.

 

 

 

The performance of Taffy 3 and the damage they inflicted upon Kurita's fleet, despite being an inferior force

 

 

Largely thanks to no other then luck and torpedoes, the damage inflicted by the japanese in the java sea was largely due to luck and tactics, the damage inflicted at savo island was once again, luck, technology, and tactics.

 

 

Regardless of what you believe about the USN during this period, it is undeniable that the ability of the American destroyers to shoot "blind" behind a thick smoke screen

 

 

can you testify that they actually did this, not "could"

 

 

when the Japanese couldn't see them to fire back as accurately

 

 

once again, can you testify they were'n firing accurately?

 

 

They simply played their strength, against the Japanese Fleet's weakness

 

 

what strength? creaking around and zig-zagging at highspeeds with smoke screens going all over while nearly 400 aircraft from various other CVEs and airstrips make their runs on enemy vessels?

[Madwolf 10,218]

It is a historic fact that the USN had the capability to blind fire. In fact they pretty much never used their optics unless the radar was knocked out.

I tried to present a case that was friendly to Japan and you still won't accept it. What do you want? For me to acknowledge that Japan won the war and Americans are living in the Matrix?

[Steel_Talon 1,101]

to be fair there are neither good examples of good US blindfire

 

Radar guided altilery was still at early stage.

you also previously said the japanese were also never able to shoot over the horizon

 

Everyone can, it just matter how effectivelly.

Radar range itself is not enough, senchronisation with FCS is more important.

 

Maximum ranges were never really tested in combat, cause BBs in WWII were no longer the main naval force.

[Madwolf 10,218]

Every USN battle is an example of radar controlled FCS because that's what they used.

[StasRaskolbas 8,397]

Sultan also forgets the absolutely dismal performance of the Japanese in their engagement against Olendorf's fleet of old BB's. 

 

Even if the Yamato and Musashi were the uberships he seems to think they were, he's forgetting that naval engagements are task forces fighting other task forces not just one on one duels, and in terms of quantity of fast BB's, the US wins when you factor in the number of Iowas, North Carolinas, and South Dakotas vs modern IJN BB's, to say nothing of other factors like leadership (what about Adm Willis Lee, who was not only a skilled commander and head of 5th/3rd Fleet's fast BB TF, but probably THE preiminent expert on radar fire control in the US Navy?)

 

I mean, people always talk about the "what if" scenario at Leyte had Halsey sent Lee's BB task force to Samar...the Japanese force had already suffered losses, was disorganized, Kurita was exhausted and didn't really even have control of his force, while the Americans would have come on the scene as a fresh and cohesive unit. 

[General_Sultan 1,228]

It is a historic fact that the USN had the capability to blind fire. In fact they pretty much never used their optics unless the radar was knocked out.

I tried to present a case that was friendly to Japan and you still won't accept it. What do you want? For me to acknowledge that Japan won the war and Americans are living in the Matrix?

 

and where I denied they had capability to blindfire?

 

 

In fact they pretty much never used their optics unless the radar was knocked out

 

 

your knowledge seems to be weak even on the USN. might explain Naval guadalcanal with this? before 1943 almost all spotting capabilities came through optics. MB directors stood on the rangefinding room and spotted targets visually. no advanced nano-tech involved as you imply.

 

 

 

as for presenging cases friendly to anyone, way to go. you can present cases  as friendly to anyone as you want. that's not my style, I don't put things in their context based on my racial/political bias or personal emotion. I put things in their context, I don't go to napoleonic history and swing facts around to suit the side I like. you can go ahead and prove yourself even more dis-credible. you've proven it without even having me refer back to my older posts

 

 

 

Sultan also forgets the absolutely dismal performance of the Japanese in their engagement against Olendorf's fleet of old BB's. 

 

 

USN: Five battleships and an entire surface fleet of cruisers, DDs, and other vessels

 

IJN: Two outdated fuso-class battleships sailing in a complete T. supported by two cruisers and two unengaged DDs

 

result: over 3000 shells expanded over 18 damn minutes to sink two crippled battleships.

 

you were saying?

[Madwolf 10,218]

We've already used simple math to prove you incredibly wrong on the 3000 rounds expended in that battle. It wasn't physically possible for the battleships to do that as you stated earlier.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

We've already used simple math to prove you incredibly wrong on the 3000 rounds expended in that battle. It wasn't physically possible for the battleships to do that as you stated earlier.

 

Math? you don't even know the ships involved on each sides of this engagement. don't twist and throw things around, I provided a direct source with all shells fired from each ship. you provided math only for the shells fired for the BBs (and poor, unsourced speculation, grossly overestimating everything)

 

now tell me how you proven me wrong? with what? your typical fanboydom and generalization?

[Madwolf 10,218]

As far as the USN not having this capability until 1943, I believe that is false. Do you have any proof of this or are you assuming this is the case from information you read on some website you've long since lost? I will figure out what happened at Guadalcanal later this week. I stopped reading Neptune's Inferno for a bit to finish another book and take care of some personal things.

I believe my information has been mostly accurate, and I freely admit my mistakes when I am wrong. I do my best to state nothing but the facts and back it up with sourced information and sound logic. I will delve into why things might have happened based on logical speculation. We won't always have the answers for why human errors, or perceived errors occurred, but we can make informed guesses like adults.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

As far as the USN not having this capability until 1943, I believe that is false. Do you have any proof of this or are you assuming this is the case from information you read on some website you've long since lost?

 

 

Infact I actually posted this to you before showing you they used visual spotting to direct fire. but you typically don't read anything I read, you walk over it, draw a circle, walk on it, and tell me to follow you, and especially since you honestly don't know half a crud about what you're talking and bent on extreme generalizations, sometimes even racist ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will figure out what happened at Guadalcanal later this week.

 

 

exactly, because you practically know nothing about it, you fail, then tell me you're gonna go find out and read about everything halfway through/after the argument. exactly like you previously made scathing claims that the USS washington sunk the kirishima from 10 miles away (rofl)

 

 

 

stopped reading Neptune's Inferno for a bit to finish another book and take care of some personal things.

 

 

does'n give you rights to spread misinformation and waste my time on this forum. provide sourced arguments or don't argue at all.

 

 

I believe my information has been mostly accurate

 

 

"Mostly accurate"  :facepalm:

 

 

let me quote my older post from the Montana class BB

 

 

"you think 3000 shells to sink something is insane after claiming 3000 shells were not fired on the Yamashiro (yarashima by your failure spelling)

 

you claimed the yamato point blanked the Gambier bay and even claimed she was visible in photos taken from taffy3

 

you claimed the ship in the photo was a japnese ship

 

you once claimed the washington sunk the kirishima 10 miles away

 

you claimed the IJN katori was a fast light CL when it was 1) Crippled previously by torps & AC 2) even if it was'n cripled she could barely make it past 20knots.

 

claimed the yamato was never able to fire over the horizon when the type 22 FC made it capable of doing so

 

you think dispersion does'n matter in naval combat (biggest failure so far TBH)

 

You assume, theorize, speculate without sources. just like your previous statement "they just had a guy who just put the fuzes back in place to fix the radar"

 

 

 

 and I freely admit my mistakes when I am wrong

 

 

Like you did when you realized the yamato's MB fire-directors and rangekeepers could actually target beyond the horizon?

 

 

I do my best to state nothing but the facts and back it up with sourced information and sound logic

 

 

Where? whenever asked for a source you say you get your info from wikipedia without even providing appropriate links. you now resorted to saying you get your info from HyperWar, once again, without providing actual links. whenever asked for a source you just walk back and tell me to bring my own sources. 

 

logic? you claimed oldendorf's BBs fired around 1k shells at surigao strait. how well-sourced of you.

 

 

 

 I will delve into why things might have happened based on logical speculation. We won't always have the answers for why human errors, or perceived errors occurred, but we can make informed guesses like adults.

 

 

we are'n discussing or researching ancient or prehistoric history to fill out large parts of our information with guesses or speculation. there is tirades of information, sources, accounts and info on what we are debating. if you are willingly admitting up to your speculation (and swinging cases around to being friendly to who or who) then go ahead, I don't give a crud. its not like you can throw down Your credibility further then this

[Madwolf 10,218]

Math? you don't even know the ships involved on each sides of this engagement. don't twist and throw things around, I provided a direct source with all shells fired from each ship. you provided math only for the shells fired for the BBs (and poor, unsourced speculation, grossly overestimating everything)

now tell me how you proven me wrong? with what? your typical fanboydom and generalization?

Since when do I not know the ships involved in the engagement? I think we demonstrated I do when we had this debate before.

You stated that the USN battleships fired over 3,000 rounds to sink the Japanese battleship over the course of 18 minutes. I proved with simple math that, even if all 6 of the USN battleships had fired, at faster than their normal rate they would still be short by almost 1300 shells.

You accuse me of grossly over-estimating the facts, and I did on the reload speed on purpose. I did this to help get closer to your estimation of shells fired. I knew they couldn't fire every 30 seconds. We had this conversation at least twice now, but you chose to ignore it to further your own agenda.

When the facts are laid out you look like a fool because the battleships fired slightly less than 1,000 rounds, destroying your argument on their bad accuracy.

If you want to bring in all the USN ships on this then we can do the math on that as well.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

You stated that the USN battleships fired over 3,000 rounds to sink the Japanese battleship over the course of 18 minutes. I proved with simple math that, even if all 6 of the USN battleships had fired, at faster than their normal rate they would still be short by almost 1300 shells.

 

 

have'n I even provided the exact data for Nr. of shells fired per BB? want me to tell you what you're doing right here? you're walking over what I said, this is a broad, magnificent example of it. I showed you the sourced number of shells fired per BB. and you walked over it and now try to run this thing all over again.

 

 

and you know what does this ALSO demonstrate? it demonstrates my previous statement, you don't even know the number of ships involved in this engagement. and thus try to rest your entire argument on stating the BBs were the only ones to fire. this demonstrates you don't know anything on this field, and yet you don't admit it (despite stating previously you'd admit you are wrong if you are). go ahead. walk another circle. I won't hop in this round. enjoy misinforming yourself and making up your own facts that suit your brilliant agenda of reading part of something on wikipedia and guessing the rest.

[Madwolf 10,218]

When did I ever state the BBS were the only ones to engage in the fight? Show me? Because you're wrong.

Add up all the shells fired by the BBs, its no where close to 3,000, which was your original statement in this argument when it started days ago. If you add in the other ships it may be true, but I'd have to do the math. I certainly won't take you at your word, because as we've seen, you source your info from defunct gaming message boards and Chinese translations you can no longer find.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

When did I ever state the BBS were the only ones to engage in the fight? Show me? Because you're wrong.

 

 

I specifically stated and sourced up the number of shells that oldendorf's BBs fired.

 

the number is even findable on hyperwar (I bet you don't even read that, to you a source is apparently a decoration)

 

right now you are basically shoving words in my mouth, I never said oldendorf's BBs fired 3k shells. I just said that In my last post, and in the montana class BB thread, and provided the Nr. of shells they fired and right now you're like "you're wrong, they never fired 3k shells, I'm not wrong"? seriously?

 

 

And with that, case closed.

[Herr_Ronin 4,900]

If there is anymore insults being said in this thread then it will be thy locked, keep it mature.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

lock it from now, save the rest.