Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class
capt soap    9/17/2005 12:55:11 PM
How would this fight turn out? the Iowa's 16 inch guns against the Yamato 18 guns? The iowa had radar,which one would sink the other 1 on 1.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT
Leech       7/6/2009 9:34:50 AM

Also, Panther is often regarded (along with T-34 and Sherman, as one of best tank designs of world war two.


Althought, there i made mistake, Panther is cross-over of Heavy and Medium tanks. It had forward armor and weight (and overall size) of heavy tank, and speed and manouverability of medium tank.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Well I said it took 20 years...   7/6/2009 1:18:29 PM
The Soviets produced heavy tanks until the 1960's...the T-10M, was the last IIRC...and the US produced the M-103 in the 1950's...but you'll note they went away, even before the current crop of super-tanks.
 
Too big, too slow, too heavy, the MBT is the better bet.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/6/2009 4:26:19 PM


I don't discuss tanks in a battleship thread: if you want to do that.........my views are here.

Well hashed out with the final finding that the Germans screwed up their tank production by ignoring mobility as a primary armor factor, as well as sheer NUMBERS. They should have stuck to the Pamzer IV (Korval) and used the material they wasted on Siberian Tigers on Panther and StuG production.


USN battleship doctrine until Iowa class was building better protected but slower ships. North Carolina was not as protected as battleships of other nations but had 9 406 mm guns 3 triple turrets, which was stronger than armament of King George V class, for example; but was relatively slow with 27 knots (in comparison to Iowa). South Dakotas were more-less same, while Iowa put accent on speed. All three classes had strong anti-aircraft armament (North Carolina had 96 40-mm AA cannons.)

Why are you telling me something I already know? Just curious.

Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.

Three indicators of incompetence shown right here.

  1. Trusting the civil administration at the time to keep its promises to anyone? With Ernst Roehm pushing up daisies, what made Rader think he could assume anything that the civil authority said, was going to be anything but a pack of lies? Canaris didn't assume that. Neither did Marshall.

  2. When were these goodies supposed to show up, again? With only three Class 1 slips for 250 meter hulls the earliest that battleship program could finish was 1954, not 1944.

  3. Where was the steel for this? I count almost 1 million tonnes for new shipping requirements. What was the armor plate capacity again? How about gun mills?

    What is the USN doing while this happens? Oh yeah, we trounce the Japanese and then turn our attention to Europe with those 28 battleships, 100 or so aircraft carriers more than 100 cruisers of all types, and 1000 destoyers, plus all those submarines (350 planned and almost 300 built) when we had the 3 million tonnes of steel and the shipyards to build all of that as we actually did.

    Aside: Did you know that up to ¼ of Stalin's tanks at the war's end were AMERICAN? There were a lot of Russian Shermans chasing the Wehrmacht, through Belorus, into Hungary and Czechoslovakia during 1944 Easy to FIX, well-made continuously running tanks. Didn't break down like a Panther. HE ammo in 1944 worked as designed. Good in mountain country. Same batch of Shermans showed up against the Japanese in August 1945 in Manchuria for the same reason.


      Anyway, Germany didn't have the steel, or the slips, or the yard workers, or the time. Raeder was supposed to know this. He ignored his own industrial policy people on this when they told him? When the USN R and C people were scrounging steel, trained manpower, and slips to build the Midways to kill Yamatos in mid 1942, canceled the Montanas to get those resources fr
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       7/6/2009 4:35:14 PM

The Soviets produced heavy tanks until the 1960's...the T-10M, was the last IIRC...and the US produced the M-103 in the 1950's...but you'll note they went away, even before the current crop of super-tanks.

 

Too big, too slow, too heavy, the MBT is the better bet.


Abrams is by definition heavy tank... but that today does not matter anyway-tanks done well in WWII, but today they are outdated. Now anyone can take rocket launcher or Molotov coctail, hide in building and send tank to grave. Not to mention helicopters or fighter planes which could take tank out from 40 km distance-in fact, entire battallion of tanks cannot stand against single tank-killer chopper.
And, about USSR tanks befor WW2... before T-34 and KV tanks, soviet tanks had two or three turrets. I mean, 1 for gun, 1 for MG and one for another MG or whatever hell design team wanted to put... maybe even another cannon. These tanks were crap-too big (25% bigger dimensions than Panther), too slow, too weak armor (20-30 mm) and too heavy (50 tons at least).
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       7/6/2009 4:38:04 PM

By the way, does anyone know how many battleships Soviet Navy had in WWII (if any)?

 
Quote    Reply

Leech       7/6/2009 4:41:50 PM















 





 





I don't discuss tanks in a battleship thread: if you want to do that.........my views are here.

 



Well hashed out with the final finding that the Germans screwed up their tank production by ignoring mobility as a primary armor factor, as well as sheer NUMBERS. They should have stuck to the Pamzer IV (Korval) and used the material they wasted on Siberian Tigers on Panther and StuG production.




USN battleship doctrine until Iowa class was building better protected but slower ships. North Carolina was not as protected as battleships of other nations but had 9 406 mm guns 3 triple turrets, which was stronger than armament of King George V class, for example; but was relatively slow with 27 knots (in comparison to Iowa). South Dakotas were more-less same, while Iowa put accent on speed. All three classes had strong anti-aircraft armament (North Carolina had 96 40-mm AA cannons.)


Why are you telling me something I already know? Just curious.


Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.


Three indicators of incompetence shown right here.




  1. Trusting the civil administration at the time to keep its promises to anyone? With Ernst Roehm pushing up daisies, what made Rader think he could assume anything that the civil authority said, was going to be anything but a pack of lies? Canaris didn't assume that. Neither did Marshall.




  2. When were these goodies supposed to show up, again? With only three Class 1 slips for 250 meter hulls the earliest that battleship program could finish was 1954, not 1944.




  3. Where was the steel for this? I count almost 1 million tonnes for new shipping requirements. What was the armor plate capacity again? How about gun mills?



    What is the USN doing while this happens? Oh yeah, we trounce the Japanese and then turn our attention to Europe with those 28 battleships, 100 or so aircraft carriers more than 100 cruisers of all types, and 1000 destoyers, plus all those submarines (350 planned and almost 300 built) when we had the 3 million tonnes of steel and the shipyards to build all of that as we actually did.



    Aside: Did you know that up to ¼ of Stalin's tanks at the war's end were AMERICAN? There were a lot of Russian Shermans chasing the Wehrmacht, through Belorus, into Hungary and Czechoslovakia during 1944 Easy to FIX, well-made continuously running tanks. Didn't break down like a Panther. HE ammo in 1944 worked as designed. Good in mountain country. Same batch of Shermans showed up against the Japanese in August 1945 in Manchuria for the same reason.



 
Quote    Reply

Leech       7/6/2009 5:12:43 PM















 





 





I don't discuss tanks in a battleship thread: if you want to do that.........my views are here.

 



Well hashed out with the final finding that the Germans screwed up their tank production by ignoring mobility as a primary armor factor, as well as sheer NUMBERS. They should have stuck to the Pamzer IV (Korval) and used the material they wasted on Siberian Tigers on Panther and StuG production.




USN battleship doctrine until Iowa class was building better protected but slower ships. North Carolina was not as protected as battleships of other nations but had 9 406 mm guns 3 triple turrets, which was stronger than armament of King George V class, for example; but was relatively slow with 27 knots (in comparison to Iowa). South Dakotas were more-less same, while Iowa put accent on speed. All three classes had strong anti-aircraft armament (North Carolina had 96 40-mm AA cannons.)


Why are you telling me something I already know? Just curious.


Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.


Three indicators of incompetence shown right here.




  1. Trusting the civil administration at the time to keep its promises to anyone? With Ernst Roehm pushing up daisies, what made Rader think he could assume anything that the civil authority said, was going to be anything but a pack of lies? Canaris didn't assume that. Neither did Marshall.




  2. When were these goodies supposed to show up, again? With only three Class 1 slips for 250 meter hulls the earliest that battleship program could finish was 1954, not 1944.




  3. Where was the steel for this? I count almost 1 million tonnes for new shipping requirements. What was the armor plate capacity again? How about gun mills?



    What is the USN doing while this happens? Oh yeah, we trounce the Japanese and then turn our attention to Europe with those 28 battleships, 100 or so aircraft carriers more than 100 cruisers of all types, and 1000 destoyers, plus all those submarines (350 planned and almost 300 built) when we had the 3 million tonnes of steel and the shipyards to build all of that as we actually did.



    Aside: Did you know that up to ¼ of Stalin's tanks at the war's end were AMERICAN? There were a lot of Russian Shermans chasing the Wehrmacht, through Belorus, into Hungary and Czechoslovakia during 1944 Easy to FIX, well-made continuously running tanks. Didn't break down like a Panther. HE ammo in 1944 worked as designed. Good in mountain country. Same batch of Shermans showed up against the Japanese in August 1945 in Manchuria for the same reason.



 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       7/6/2009 5:29:01 PM

Leech Wrote:

Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.

Yes, of course I know about Plan Z....But that is not my point. What I was talking about was the quality of leadership in the Kriegsmarine. As I said in my earlier thread, outside of a few examples, their record was very poor. On those rare occasions when the fight was more or less fair, The RN usually got the best of them.   Initiative was frown upon. 

 

Two examples.

 

1)       Marschall attacks and sinks HMS Glorious and escorts. Reader puts him ashore for having the gall to disregard an order to attack Harstad (which Marschall knew had been abandoned. The Admiral never went to sea for KM again

 

2)       Captain Hoffman of Scharnhorst attempts to Lure Ramillies away from a convoy it is protecting with hopes that this will allow Gneisenau free to attack the then unguarded ships. Lutjens calls off the attack and reprimands the Captain for his actions.

 

 

The high seas fleet?s obsession with not taking risk tells me that their problem was only partially a lack of ships. It was also incompetence. At the tactical, strategic and planning levels.

 

Remember Lindemann?s words on the bridge of Bismarck as two RN Capital ships opened fire on him while his Admiral gave no order:

?I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass?    And opened fire.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Souvenir of the Nile.   7/6/2009 5:56:59 PM



Leech Wrote:



Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.



Yes, of course I know about Plan Z....But that is not my point. What I was talking about was the quality of leadership in the Kriegsmarine. As I said in my earlier thread, outside of a few examples, their record was very poor. On those rare occasions when the fight was more or less fair, The RN usually got the best of them.   Initiative was frown upon. 


 


Two examples.


 


1)       Marschall attacks and sinks HMS Glorious and escorts. Reader puts him ashore for having the gall to disregard an order to attack Harstad (which Marschall knew had been abandoned. The Admiral never went to sea for KM again


 


2)       Captain Hoffman of Scharnhorst attempts to Lure Ramillies away from a convoy it is protecting with hopes that this will allow Gneisenau free to attack the then unguarded ships. Lutjens calls off the attack and reprimands the Captain for his actions.


 


 


The high seas fleet?s obsession with not taking risk tells me that their problem was only partially a lack of ships. It was also incompetence. At the tactical, strategic and planning levels.


 


Remember Lindemann?s words on the bridge of Bismarck as two RN Capital ships opened fire on him while his Admiral gave no order:



?I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass?    And opened fire.


 


While the ship?s officers and crews gave a good effort when give

 
Quote    Reply

Leech       7/7/2009 4:51:15 AM



Leech Wrote:



Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.



Yes, of course I know about Plan Z....But that is not my point. What I was talking about was the quality of leadership in the Kriegsmarine. As I said in my earlier thread, outside of a few examples, their record was very poor. On those rare occasions when the fight was more or less fair, The RN usually got the best of them.   Initiative was frown upon. 


 


Two examples.


 


1)       Marschall attacks and sinks HMS Glorious and escorts. Reader puts him ashore for having the gall to disregard an order to attack Harstad (which Marschall knew had been abandoned. The Admiral never went to sea for KM again


 


2)       Captain Hoffman of Scharnhorst attempts to Lure Ramillies away from a convoy it is protecting with hopes that this will allow Gneisenau free to attack the then unguarded ships. Lutjens calls off the attack and reprimands the Captain for his actions.


 


 


The high seas fleet?s obsession with not taking risk tells me that their problem was only partially a lack of ships. It was also incompetence. At the tactical, strategic and planning levels.


 


Remember Lindemann?s words on the bridge of Bismarck as two RN Ca

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics