I think Japan still would have invaded the Soviet Union though, if the Second Sino-Japanese War continued (the oil embargo only really happened once they invaded Indochina).
Other than that I agree with you. That would be curious alternate reality.
Battleship March Madness (Round 2)
-
I think the claim of who sunk what battleship when is all kinda irelevent anyway, how many battleships were sunk by ship on ship fire anyway? Most ships that were sunk were sunk by air power in this time period because that’s what we saw during WW2, the dawn of naval air power replacing battle-wagons as the center piece of naval warfare.
There were a few surface kills. The Bismarck obliterated the Hood. The Washington knocked out the Kirishima. A cruiser rendered perhaps the decisive blow to the BB Hiei.
If sailing the losses were about as likely to be combined actions as not from what I can tell. In port losses tended to come from the air (naval or ground based.)
That said Gar does bring up a good point that the USS missouri wasnt operational during the time period specified in the paramaters of the historical match-up
Incorrect. ABWorsham did not limit the contestants to a specific year.
I propose the USS Arizona as a replacement to the USS Missouri on these grounds.
We discussed the issue in the previous thread. The Arizona wouldn’t be representative as it was a WWI era ship with 14" guns. If the cutoff was commissioning by the end of 1941 then the USS North Carolina would be the choice (16" guns.) The USS South Dakota had been launched, but was commissioned in March of '42.
-
All I’m reading is… WAH!!! cry cry cry cry cry cry cry
And I get the feeling you’re not done yet.
Let the rest of us know when you’re finished.
If you can’t defend your ‘logic’ of what qualifies for comparison, then we are done as others have pointed out with proper logic and debate of the actual comparisons that matter.
-
Oh you want some more?
YOU said this is a comparison of 1941 Battleships and the prerequisite was they needed to sink a compatible ship to qualify for the comparison. Irregardless of how stupid and asinine that logic is if you want to stick to your fact pattern Duke of York is not a candidate because by 1941 it didn’t sink ANYTHING. GET IT?
Well if you’re going to name call, I’ll point out that it’s stupid to say I said things that I never said. And the correct terminology professor is to quote what I WROTE, becuase no one actually “says” anything on this website.
Point of fact - I simply pointed out that the missouri never sunk anything.
Never once did I claim it wasn’t a candidate on that basis. That’s your Stupid illogical conclusion.
How long is it going to be, before your scientifically observed temper tantrum goes over the top, and you lock this thread and edit my post, because you can’t handle the comments I WRITE on this website emotionally? NOT LONG is my guess.
And by your false logic, why not include the refitted missouri that fought in the first gulf war? I mean it’s the same ship right? By YOUR failed logic it should be included, because you’re not advocating any kind of “era” limit imposed on the ships discussed.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. You said it had to have sunk a ship by 41.
Again - put your reading glasses on old man, I never WROTE that anywhere.
I apologize in advance Worsham if your thread gets locked, or these posts get edited, Imperious Leader doesn’t have the cerebral fortitude to withstand legitimate debate, and the moment he loses ground, he goes for the heavy handed moderation option, to cover up his embarassments.
DOY > Missouri !
-
Gargantua made a good point by saying a ship is only good as her CREW.
It is only cold dead metal and gets alive with a crew who knows how to handle it…BUT it also needed to be made up on start of this topic if it is only a ship to ship comparsion by duelling with the given attributes like firepower, speed etc, etc…
however, my limits of my 2 cents is herby done… -
Quote
YOU said this is a comparison of 1941 Battleships and the prerequisite was they needed to sink a compatible ship to qualify for the comparison. Irregardless of how stupid and asinine that logic is if you want to stick to your fact pattern Duke of York is not a candidate because by 1941 it didn’t sink ANYTHING. GET IT?Well if you’re going to name call, I’ll point out that it’s stupid to say I said things that I never said. And the correct terminology professor is to quote what I WROTE, becuase no one actually “says” anything on this website.
Point of fact - I simply pointed out that the missouri never sunk anything.
And by doing so attempted to make that ship less than qualified as in “a ship that does not sink another ship should not be part of any comparison.”
Never once did I claim it wasn’t a candidate on that basis. That’s your Stupid illogical conclusion.
No it’s more like you backtracking and editing some past posts that make your argument less rediculious.
How long is it going to be, before your scientifically observed temper tantrum goes over the top, and you lock this thread and edit my post, because you can’t handle the comments I WRITE on this website emotionally? NOT LONG is my guess.
The only one laughing at you is ….everybody.
And by your false logic, why not include the refitted missouri that fought in the first gulf war? I mean it’s the same ship right? By YOUR failed logic it should be included, because you’re not advocating any kind of “era” limit imposed on the ships discussed.
That would be too complicated for you because you are unable to just compare specs between ships because if you did, anything you said would have less merit as it does now.
Quote
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. You said it had to have sunk a ship by 41.Again - put your reading glasses on old man, I never WROTE that anywhere.
Excuse me while FACTS SHOOT DOWN YOUR ARGUMENT YET AGAIN: “This is a 1941 Matchup.”
You did write that ships that didn’t sink another ship should not count, but conveniently in your post here, you edited that out. Nice.
**The Missouri never sunk a ship. � Ever.
Her crew also ran her a-ground.The reality here is that Americans sailors, are just not the same, or even similar calibe as British sailors. � You’re talking about 100’s of years of tradition, vs self grounding and friendly fire incidents.
If the question was, who would you rather have supporting your troops on the ground with shore bombardment, SURE the Missouri could be a better pick. � But British ingenuity is going to rule this day, hands down.**
THAT SAID. � The missouri shouldn’t count. � She didn’t even leave port until 1944.
� Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 10:47:55 am by Gargantua �I apologize in advance Worsham if your thread gets locked, or these posts get edited, Imperious Leader doesn’t have the cerebral fortitude to withstand legitimate debate, and the moment he loses ground, he goes for the heavy handed moderation option, to cover up his embarassments.
You might want to apologize instead to him by making up rubbish regarding Worshams ACTUAL BASIS OF COMPARISON, which is entirely different than your take. Be a good chap and let others debate the real merits of comparison.
to cover up his embarassments.
You must mean embarrassments?
Here is where you needed to cover gaffs…
Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 10:47:55 am by Gargantua -
Uhm… so you’re saying that 3 days ago, I edited my posts, because I had some kind of a master plan, that included me somehow knowing all your response? before you actually posted your responses, because I somehow knew what you were going to say?
Dumb.
You should note that your responses are all posted WELL AFTER my last edit. So you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
I edited some basic presentation/spelling errors, minutes after I made that post. Is this not allowed?
If the question was, who would you rather have supporting your troops on the ground with shore bombardment, SURE the Missouri could be a better pick. � But British ingenuity is going to rule this day, hands down.
THAT SAID. � The missouri shouldn’t count. � She didn’t even leave port until 1944.
You see that part in capitals, where it says, THAT SAID. It’s a clear seperation from the concept of why the DOY would beat the missouri, and that it shouldn’t count.
Someone challenged my idea, that it wasn’t even debateable. I made my basic case. And said “THAT SAID” then noted that the missouri probably shouldn’t even count anyways.
-
I must also ask, how many German Battleships did the Americans sink? A responsibility solely layed on British shoulders… the ones that could carry the weight.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 11:04:31 pm by Imperious Leader »
Also, What are YOU doing editing my posts?
-
Also, What are YOU doing editing my posts?
That was more rubbish anti American stuff that was over the line. I left the rest of your post as a self mockery of your point of view.
Uhm… so you’re saying that 3 days ago, I edited my posts, because I had some kind of a master plan, that included me somehow knowing all your response? before you actually posted your responses, because I somehow knew what you were going to say?
Dumb.
No once we discovered the line of ridiculous reasoning you were after, we all posted and tore it apart with basic logic. Then you edited that post and latter posted " where did i say this"
When all the time you had removed the references. I don’t really care because to declare that line of reasoning is kids play at best.
You should note that your responses are all posted WELL AFTER my last edit. So you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
It was posted after your edit, and we don’t really need much to shoot down your arguments. They have no merit. The OB is interested in comparing BATTLESHIPS. Not crews.
When you compare cars, watches, or homes you don’t compare the people wearing or using the objects.
You don’t say “hey if that guy is not wearing the Rolex vs. a guy who is wearing the Fortis you don’t have a working comparison because the Rolex is not keeping time due to inactivity, so the Fortis is better”
People don’t make stupid comparisons like that.
I edited some basic presentation/spelling errors, minutes after I made that post. Is this not allowed?
LOL. good one.
Quote
If the question was, who would you rather have supporting your troops on the ground with shore bombardment, SURE the Missouri could be a better pick. � But British ingenuity is going to rule this day, hands down.THAT SAID. � The missouri shouldn’t count. � She didn’t even leave port until 1944.
You see that part in capitals, where it says, THAT SAID. It’s a clear seperation from the concept of why the DOY would beat the missouri, and that it shouldn’t count.
Someone challenged my idea, that it wasn’t even debateable. I made my basic case. And said “THAT SAID” then noted that the missouri probably shouldn’t even count anyways.
LOL. Besides the fact that the comparison has nothing to do with 1941 Battleships, or that making the remark that one ship didn’t sink a ship, so y association it should not count, or lastly that DOY didn’t sink anything till 1943 and really didn’t sink the Scharnhorst, but helped…just makes the real point you are making not even remotely a candidate based on your own statements.
LOL
-
1. British Battleship, Duke of York vs
** U.S Battleship, Missouri** wins
- Japanese Battleship, Yamato vs wins
German Battleship, Bismarck
-
@aequitas:
Gargantua made a good point by saying a ship is only good as her CREW.
It is only cold dead metal and gets alive with a crew who knows how to handle it…BUT it also needed to be made up on start of this topic if it is only a ship to ship comparsion by duelling with the given attributes like firepower, speed etc, etc…I agree on that. Â But differences in average crew quality are difficult to quantify, so we have to rely on historical anecdotes/match ups. Â And one could expect BB’s to have some of the better crew/commanders in a fleet. Â So unless there are some clear known strengths or weaknesses with one nation’s crews relative to another’s, the comparison still comes down to primarily a mechanical one. Â (However, the overall project management aspect of the French BB’s powder/projectiles combined with German discipline gave the Bismarck the win in the prior round for example. Â The problems with the French guns were fatal, wnen they should have been the winning aspect.)
I think the final round is going to be fun because the differences in the styles of the ships, speeds, targeting gives a classic match up. Â It makes various outcomes more likely/plausible. Â I’ve been trying to visualize how I would fight the Yamato into range so that I could score hits and think I have a way to do it. Â I found an old game download of “Fighting Steel” and have been experimenting with it to appreciate the radar targeting of the Missouri.
-
When GD power, or whoever, goes about reviewing a car, or truck, or watch, they do so for the benefit of the person BUYING OR USING the item.
HOWEVER, when someone quantifies/reviews or compares any RESTAURANT, HOTEL, SERVICE, or ORGANIZATION. They are graded on not only their physical products and specifications, but also their management, organization, customer service skills, and trade qualities.
If you were to say compare Joe’s Car Repair, vs Steve’s car repair, and ask, who would provide better service, or WIN in or around 1941, you would look at yes, Joe’s has two lifts with pits, and 3 red tool boxes with all tools in it, But steve, who only has one lift and pit, and one tool box, is a better cheaper mechanic, who also has all the latest tech tools, and has made his own car. Who is better?
Thus, in comparison, unless someone makes the statement “ALL CREWS AND TRAINING ARE TO BE CONSIDERED EQUAL” One must measure the calibre of the object as a whole.
AGAIN for example. If you were to compare German Waffen SS Infantry vs Polish civil militia in 1939, And there were 2000 Germans vs 5000 Polish, if you can only quantify the clothing and the equipment, and not the training, discipline, or leadership, you’re going to skew your example horribly.
The Question should be really, Would the Duke of York, with her crew per the era, defeat the Missouri and her crew per the era?
Even if you don’t like the concept of considering the “people” component, the “Training” component is a specification that can be physically observed. In my OPINION I believe the British had better training, it was longer, more in depth, and they learned from masters of the sea, who had generational knowledge and legitimate combat experience.
I think that’s enough to push the DOY over the top, of course, you disagree.
-
Clyde, Red, thank you for your fair comments and support in this on-going debate!
Let me know when you’re laughing at me, apparently “everybody” is. lol.
-
Even if you don’t like the concept of considering the “people” component, the “Training” component is a specification that can be physically observed. In my OPINION I believe the British had better training, it was longer, more in depth, and they learned from masters of the sea, who had generational knowledge and legitimate combat experience.
It is not part of the OB original comparison. He is comparing ship with ship in terms of effectiveness based on the SHIPS capabilities. It lames no sence to say “hey what if they didn’t bring enough fuel to power the ship to it’s maximum capabilities allowing the other ship at 5 knots slower to win”
Remove the crews or rate them all equal. If you want your own comparison that INCLUDES THEM, than make your own thread.
He is comparing ship with ship based on specs.
When GD power, or whoever, goes about reviewing a car, or truck, or watch, they do so for the benefit of the person BUYING OR USING the item.
And they manage to compare the car with car based on specs, like MPG or performance. NOT HOW THE FREAKING DRIVER USES THE CAR. They compare based on all things being equal, which is the basic way of comparing two machines…
HOWEVER, when someone quantifies/reviews or compares any RESTAURANT, HOTEL, SERVICE, or ORGANIZATION. They are graded on not only their physical products and specifications, but also their management, organization, customer service skills, and trade qualities.
LOL. These are service oriented businesses and they include how well the staff performs. This analogy is clearly flawed and not part of any comparison along the same lines as two different Battleships. LOL
AGAIN for example. If you were to compare German Waffen SS Infantry vs Polish civil militia in 1939, And there were 2000 Germans vs 5000 Polish, if you can only quantify the clothing and the equipment, and not the training, discipline, or leadership, you’re going to skew your example horribly.
And thats why nobody would attempt to make a analogy between battleships, tanks, and aircraft and the quality of human soldiers because many other factors are in play.
But comparing two fighters or tanks just includes the attributes of each plane irrespective of pilot quality.
The Question should be really, Would the Duke of York, with her crew per the era, defeat the Missouri and her crew per the era?
No actually that is not part of the OB position. He is just comparing unit with unit. Not part of the era nonsense, or who ate more hamburgers the night before, or who was sink. He is just comparing two freaking ships so what is do hard for you to understand that?
Even if you don’t like the concept of considering the “people” component, the “Training” component is a specification that can be physically observed. In my OPINION I believe the British had better training, it was longer, more in depth, and they learned from masters of the sea, who had generational knowledge and legitimate combat experience.
Thats fine except that he is comparing two ships, NOT TWO DIFFERENTLY TRAINED CREWS.
From now on assume every ship for purposes of comparison is in a post war harbor and you got some small crew taking out each ship on trials to test how fast it is and how well it fires the guns. They plot out all the results on paper and statistically rate the differences.
-
The original says 1940’s I guess that would include 1949 right U.S.A. all the way
-
Clyde, Red, thank you for your fair comments and support in this on-going debate!
Hey, leave me out of the other fight. My “support” is limited to including things for discussion. We are on opposite ends on much of the debate.
-
If your doing all time Battleship, the Mighty MO beats anything hands down because it was more advanced after retrofit and served till 1991.
If your just comparing pre 1945 ships… it probably results in one of the many 1944-45 US Battle wagons, with Yamato/ Musashi and perhaps HMS Vanguard close behind.
All the German and Italian and most of the British units were too antiquated by 1943+
-
@Imperious:
If your just comparing pre 1945 ships… it probably results in one of the many 1944-45 US Battle wagons, with Yamato/ Musashi and perhaps HMS Vanguard close behind.
All the German and Italian and most of the British units were too antiquated by 1943+
Yes. I assume the reason the Vanguard wasn’t included is because it wasn’t commissioned until 1946. She was launched in late '44, but still wasn’t ready by Japan’s surrender, so there wasn’t a rush after that.
Pairing the U.S. radar aiming system with the Yamato/Musashi would have been a very difficult nut to crack…assuming fighter cover.
-
Another strike against the Duke of York vs. any U.S. BB. According to an article I was reading tonight, the U.S. had the best large caliber armour penetrating round in the world, while the U.K.'s was more of a Treaty design (inferior pre-WWII limitation.) During post WWII testing ours could punch right through thick turret facing at high obliquity, while theirs could not, even at moderate angles. So at range, they’ve got trouble.
Another problem is secondary armament. If they close into this range the Missouri will be crashing in twice as many pounds/minute as the Duke in secondary guns alone. (The Yamato get’s interesting here as it has actual light cruiser turrets forming half of its secondary armament…ouch!)
-
Here is Warshams comments regarding Battleship March Madness.
If the countries of the 1940’s decided to solved WWII by a Battleship Duel, who would win. Here are the rules, nations get to pick the best ship in the fleet to match up. Consider this a “March Madness” with Battleships. After each duel the winner is dry docked for repairs and the losser is sunk. I gave strongest Navies the higher seats in the contest. Let’s say for contest infomation, the showdown will take play in Caribbean. Ships will start 35 miles apart and can use all technologly at hand, for example Radar.
Why don’t you look up the definition of DUEL.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duel
1. a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel.
2. any contest between two persons or parties.
For your benefit, I’ve bolded the words that matter. This is a DUEL, between two PARTIES, via their SHIPS. The question is WHO will be the winner. NOT what will be the winner.
Yes the ship matters, but just because you have two fighters in the ring, it doesn’t mean the guy who weighs more, and has an inch more reach is going to come out on top everytime.
He is comparing ship with ship based on specs.
What gave you this impression? I think the game you’re playing here is actually called “Jump to conclusions”.
-
Quote
If the countries of the 1940’s decided to solved WWII by a Battleship Duel, who would win. Here are the rules, nations get to pick the best ship in the fleet to match up. Consider this a “March Madness” with Battleships. After each duel the winner is dry docked for repairs and the losser is sunk. I gave strongest Navies the higher seats in the contest. Let’s say for contest infomation, the showdown will take play in Caribbean. Ships will start 35 miles apart and can use all technologly at hand, for example Radar.Why don’t you look up the definition of DUEL.
And he said nothing of crews, of only 1941 ships, or of having any demerit for not having sunk any ship. I suspect basic reasoning is lost on any argument that attempts to infer sophomoric notions of what the OB had never spoke of and of which you “added” to any comparison. Nobody but you has these issues. They understand the basic argument made for this comparison.
Quote
1. a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel.2. any contest between two persons or parties.
Off topic and having nothing to do with anything….
For your benefit, I’ve bolded the words that matter. This is a DUEL, between two PARTIES, via their SHIPS. The question is WHO will be the winner. NOT what will be the winner.
Yes the ship matters, but just because you have two fighters in the ring, it doesn’t mean the guy who weighs more, and has an inch more reach is going to come out on top everytime.
What matters is what the OB had posted, not your own references for comparison. If you want to compare crews, make another thread.
Quote
He is comparing ship with ship based on specs.What gave you this impression? I think the game you’re playing here is actually called “Jump to conclusions”.
Read what he said and let others have their say.
Suggested Topics
