Battleship March Madness (Round 2)



  • Thanks for all the discussion for round one. Here is round two.

    1. British Battleship, Duke of York  vs

    U.S Battleship, Missouri

    2. Japanese Battleship, Yamato  vs

    German Battleship, Bismarck


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Dude….

    1. Duke of York

    2. Yamamato

    This isn’t even debatable.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Gargantua:

    Dude….

    1. Duke of York

    2. Yamamato

    This isn’t even debatable.

    I’m not sure what the reason is for picking Duke of York.  The Missouri was 5 knots faster than DOY, which means that it could choose the range of such an engagement, and its 16-inch guns could outrange the DOY’s 14-inch guns – so in essence, it could have simply kept out range of DOY’s main guns while demolishing it with its own 16-inch shells.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Right and by that “logic” remove Yamato and Musashi.

    Remove all French Ships and Russian since they didn’t sink anything.

    Remove Tirpitz as well.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Also, the French sunk their OWN ships.  That should count in these proceedings.



  • @Gargantua:

    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.

    You haven’t studied history much, have you?  While the Brits had the dominant fleets and a history of expert seamanship, our boats were proving more than a match for them in the same class.  Both the American Revolution and the War of 1812 demonstrated that.  See the USS Constitution or USS Bonhomme Richard.

    And to be honest, the Brits had a nasty habit of losing big boats and aircraft carriers in poorly managed efforts during WWII.

    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.

    You mean like the ingenuity of mishandling ammunition/or underprotecting magazines so that Brit boats had a tendency to go kablooey in two World Wars?  No, thanks.

    What is going to rule the day is 16" guns.  15" guns weren’t terribly effective against the Bismarck for example, and British gunnery was surpassed by the Germans (who had a less distinguished naval tradition) in the dust up involving the Hood.

    So I would put my money on the Missouri.  Faster, much better armed, and I believe better armoured.  Even looking at intangibles like tradition I would not favor the Brits.  When you are slower and outranged you are the target, not the shooter.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Also, the French sunk their OWN ships.  That should count in these proceedings.

    So i guess that means acknowledgement that Yamato and Musashi should not be on the list based on they did nothing. As well as all the French ships that were not scuttled and Russian ships plus Tirpitz.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Alright you want to double team me? NO PROBLEM.

    This is a 1941 Matchup.

    In 1941, your ship was under construction, dry docked and on shore.  Even though the Missouri may have been 5 knots faster than my ship,  you’re still moving 0 knots, that means my ship, the Duke of York is moving -5 knots.  That’s still faster than your dry docked, unmanned lump of steel.

    So in terms of our battleship march madness, in a 1941 match up, the Duke of York still wins.

    And you want to talk about MISMANAGEMENT of ships, how about entire Fleets?  Look at Pearl Harbour.

    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.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Duke of York didn’t sink anything. It did help the British navy to sink Scharnhorst which was a battlecruiser, so by logic Duke of York is off the list.

    Also, it didn’t even attack Scharnhorst before 1943 and as you stated this is a 1941 comparison.

    In 1941 you got little for comparison by basis of needing the prerequisite of “sinking a ship in 1941”.

    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.

    US was too busy sinking the entire japanese navy which was more involved than both German and Italian navies combined. US sunk about 16 battleships in the pacific, which is alot more than UK.



  • @Gargantua:

    This is a 1941 Matchup.

    No, it is not.  ABWorsham used naval strengths from 1941 to determine the seeds, but not the contestants.  Otherwise I would agree with you about the contestants eligible.  He also started the previous thread with:  “If the countries of the 1940’s decided to solved WWII by a Battleship Duel, who would win.”

    Even if it were 1941 the question would be “when?”  Before Dec. 7?  Then the Yamato is gone as well.  Or should we be looking at May of 1940 instead?  What about the summer of 1939?

    And you want to talk about MISMANAGEMENT of ships, how about entire Fleets?  Look at Pearl Harbour.

    The U.S. wasn’t at war at the time and the blow was delivered by carriers.  So your attempt at comparison is like rating boxers by how badly they were beaten by a guy with a baseball bat who caught them on their way to the mailbox.  It doesn’t say much of anything about how they would compare in the ring.

    Even so, exactly how many U.S. ships were sunk by Japanese battleships that day?

    Oh, and those U.S. ships that were sunk by carrier air forces that day were raised and successfully fired the last salvoes of the war in BB vs. BB action.  Seems a fitting punctuation mark to end your argument with.

    I must also ask, how many German Battleships did the Americans sink?

    Who cares?  Did any German battleships get anywhere near an American battleship?  Did the U.S. lose any battleships after 1941?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Red Harvest: Exactly right on good post.



  • Go around for another salvo Red:)


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Duke of York didn’t sink anything.

    The Duke of York was instrumental in sinking the Scharnhorst.

    Also, it didn’t even attack Scharnhorst before 1943 and as you stated this is a 1941 comparison.

    TYPICAL AMERICAN FRIENDLY FIRE!  It’s a good thing you thank Red Harvest, for shattering your useless comment above.  Exactly right on RH!

    The U.S. wasn’t at war at the time and the blow was delivered by carriers.

    Again irrelevant,  My comment was about mismanagement, not the style of attack, American Complacency, in terms of their pacific fleet is exactly what I’m talking about.  It’s why British sailors get the edge in my opinion.

    Did the U.S. lose any battleships after 1941?

    Again, only to poor management 🙂



  • @morrel:

    Go around for another salvo Red:)

    Nah, I’m not a bully.  Gargantua has made some valid points, but way over-extended on them in my opinion.  “This isn’t even debatable” rubbed me (and apparently others) the wrong way…  I don’t disagree about the time periods in question being problematic.  It might be interesting to do comparisons from a specific point in time for example, rather than a “best of the 1940’s.”  I alluded to that problem in the prior thread.

    And to any Brits here, I’m not trying to belittle the UK’s efforts, just recognizing that they had some embarrassments in the process.  Picking the UK over the US on the basis of naval tradition appears wanting to me considering the history of direct conflict between the two powers.  When it came to fighting spirit and ability to engage in WWII, it appears more equal than not to me.

    If/when it comes time to consider the Missouri vs. the Yamato things get decidedly interesting…  The time slice considered could come into play.  Perhaps the Iowa would be a better representative for matching up, since she was commissioned before the Missouri.  I question whether the U.S radar range finding would be decisive mid-war.  At night it might prove decisive with respect to surprise.  However, radar was “delicate” when large caliber shells were pouring in at you and near misses could knock it out.  But by late in the war that fragility might not matter.  U.S. battleships were getting accurate firing solutions at extremely long ranges by late 1944 (hits with the 1st salvo at 15 miles or more if I’m not mistaken.)

    And considering BB vs. BB without any sort of destroyer/cruiser screen/accompaniment skews things away from Japan.  Early in the war U.S. torpedoes were nearly useless while the Japanese had awesome weapons with long range, and radar was still coming into its own.  So in surface action the Japanese had an advantage with torpedoes from escorts, while the U.S. had an advantage with early radar detection/range finding.

    It is challenging to consider BB vs. BB without considering lesser surface ships in the mix, and ignoring the fleet air arms.



  • very well  stated


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    but way over-extended on them in my opinion

    Also very well stated 😄

    In for a penny in for a pound!


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Quote
    Duke of York didn’t sink anything.

    The Duke of York was instrumental in sinking the Scharnhorst.

    Not until 1943 and as you stated this is a 1941 comparison, so Duke of York is off the list.

    Quote
    The U.S. wasn’t at war at the time and the blow was delivered by carriers.

    Again irrelevant,  My comment was about mismanagement, not the style of attack, American Complacency, in terms of their pacific fleet is exactly what I’m talking about.  It’s why British sailors get the edge in my opinion.

    Battleships do not have “complacency” they are objects and this is a comparison of 1941 Battleships according to YOU, not the Management of how these ships were employed.

    Quote
    Did the U.S. lose any battleships after 1941?

    Again, only to poor management Smiley

    Probably all the Battleships sunk after 1941 were because of American naval and air forces.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Not until 1943 and as you stated this is a 1941 comparison, so Duke of York is off the list.

    How does that make ANY sense?

    So in a theoretical matchup, we can only talk about match-ups that ACTUALLY occurred in 1941?  that’s stupid.

    What I implied was, and was corrected by Red Harvest for, was that only ships that were sea-worthy in 1941 should be included.

    Comparing King Tiger Tanks in 1945, to Panzer II’s in 1940 doesn’t make much sense does it?  You have to keep the time periods relative.

    Even by my implication if the DOY fought the Scharnhorst  whether it was in 1943 or 41 is irrelevant, both ships were sea worthy, in the alotted time period being discussed.  Not just sea-worthy at the end of the war.

    Battleships do not have “complacency” they are objects and this is a comparison of 1941 Battleships according to YOU, not the Management of how these ships were employed.

    Ok professor, take your ship with no crew on it, and put it up against my ship with a fully trained crew on it, and see who wins.

    A ship is only as good as her crew, which is more than capable of complacency.

    Probably all the Battleships sunk after 1941 were because of American naval and air forces.

    What about the TIRPITZ you just pointed out?

    Probably hey?  Wow…


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Quote
    Not until 1943 and as you stated this is a 1941 comparison, so Duke of York is off the list.

    How does that make ANY sense?

    ]

    Because this is not “back to the future” comparison :roll:

    The Missouri never sunk a ship. � Ever.

    This is a 1941 Matchup.

    YOU argued that this is only a comparison of 1941 Battleships and that if the ship didn’t exist or didn’t sink anything by that time, it is not part of the list.

    Of course nobody agrees with that logic, but it was perhaps some way to make a point even if the facts latter shot it down.

    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?

    So in a theoretical matchup, we can only talk about match-ups that ACTUALLY occurred in 1941?  that’s stupid.

    THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. You said it had to have sunk a ship by 41.

    Quote
    Battleships do not have “complacency” they are objects and this is a comparison of 1941 Battleships according to YOU, not the Management of how these ships were employed.

    Ok professor, take your ship with no crew on it, and put it up against my ship with a fully trained crew on it, and see who wins.

    A ship is only as good as her crew, which is more than capable of complacency.

    NO you got it wrong again. To compare a Battleship with another you just compare the attributes of the ships. The crew was not built with the ship and this is not a comparison of crews.

    Don’t be ridiculous. You compare speed, armor plating, fire control, guns, etc

    A ship is only as good as her crew

    So i guess you can never compare any tank because all tank crews are different?

    I guess you can never compare a fighter or bomber because THE CREW JUST gets in the way of any comparison because they are all different.

    WOW what precision and logic!

    I guess you cant compare cars or trucks, since that driver makes all the difference. I guess we don’t need GD Power anymore… :roll:

    Quote
    Probably all the Battleships sunk after 1941 were because of American naval and air forces.

    What about the TIRPITZ you just pointed out?

    Probably hey?  Wow…

    What about basically the entire Japanese navy. Which is more? Tirpitz of the Japanese navy.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    All I’m reading is… WAH!!!  😢  😢  😢  😢  😢  😢  😢

    And I get the feeling you’re not done yet.

    Let the rest of us know when you’re finished.



  • @Gargantua:

    In for a penny in for a pound!

    I’m partial to “in for a fight, in for a funeral.”

    When it comes to the crew/officer/management thing my observations are:
    1.  Prewar fleet “management” doesn’t apply with respect to the fighting ability of ships in 1 vs. 1 during wartime.  It could impact their ordinance or other aspects of the ship however.  (See the French issues with incomplete BB’s and dangerous/inaccurate projectiles.)
    2.  Crew experience/quality/characteristics does apply in my opinion.  But the differences have to be great in order to say one has an advantage.  I would give Japanese crew/commanders an edge in optics centered night fighting based on the historical record.  (However, radar removes or reverses much of that edge…unless it gets knocked out.)  Similarly, U.S. damage control was pretty good from what I’ve read, while Japanese damage control was more problematic at least in some key situations.

    As for the Tirpitz
    The British navy couldn’t sink her although they tried many times and many ways.  The RAF did succeed however.  This is hurting rather than helping your argument.



  • 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. So really all they evidence presented by both sides is moot as all would have been sunk by a carrier air group that catches them in the middle of their silly “duels” � 😄

    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, so perhaps it should be dropped from the contest in favor of a US ship that was actaully around during 1941 and on active duty? I propose the USS Arizona as a replacement to the USS Missouri on these grounds. The Arizona was an active ship at the time (1941) and given that this is all hypothetical anyway we could assume that this ship dosnt get blown up in Pearl Harbor and instead gets to take part in this faceoff. Also given the tragic ending this ship had I think it would be more fun to speculate what the USS Arizona could have done if it got to be in a fair fight. Just my two cents though……



  • @Clyde85:

    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.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 42
  • 17
  • 1
  • 26
  • 2
  • 2
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts