Results 1 to 20 of 642

Thread: William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    I did; you might recheck my post to Carl. Most of the surface fighting was destroyer torpedo runs by the US IIRC. Fuso was sunk that way. Yamashiro was sunk by battleship gunnery but that was combat of unequals as Yamashiro was a pre-WWI battleship fighting against 3 of the most modern battleships the US had.Of the 6 US BBs in action, one fired no rounds and another fired just one full salvo.
    I think you have mixed up your battleships. The newest of ours in that fight was I think the West Virginia, launched in 1921. All had been considerably modified of course and the West Virginia was sunk on Dec 7 and brought back to life.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  2. #2
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I think you have mixed up your battleships. The newest of ours in that fight was I think the West Virginia, launched in 1921. All had been considerably modified of course and the West Virginia was sunk on Dec 7 and brought back to life.
    You answered your own point--Except for the Arizona, the battleships sunk/damaged at Pearl in 1941 were all substantially recapitalized, which was also my point about new--particularly with regard to fire control radar. The reason that the three other battleships were only minimally engaged at Surigao Strait was that, being without the new radar, they were unable to derive timely firing solutions to engage the Japanese.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs
    Skagerrakschlacht/Battle of Jutland was a battle of unequal forces as well.
    The German High Seas Fleet blew up some vulnerable battlecruisers, but it had no chance against the squadrons of new 15" armed QEs and Rs which came into action only at very long ranges.
    The vastly weaker side slipped away after blunting the vulnerable vanguard of the enemy.
    Most of the British fleet never got into action. The first engagement between Beatty's and Hipper's battlecruisers was pretty much of an even match. The 4 QE battleships supporting Beatty did not get in range. In the main event, only 2 of Jellicoe's battle squadrons were really engaged. Capital ships (heavy cruiser and above) in the two fleets numbered 45 Brit to 27 German while capital ship loss was 6 Brit to 2 German.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs
    The same goes for the "size of ships" criterion. By today's standards the ships of the line at Trafalgar were corvettes or small frigates!
    Trying to compare an 18th century sail-powered ship of the line to a 20th century diesel powered armored battleship or even a guided missile frigate is comparing tree frogs to kangaroos.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    You answered your own point--Except for the Arizona, the battleships sunk/damaged at Pearl in 1941 were all substantially recapitalized, which was also my point about new--particularly with regard to fire control radar. The reason that the three other battleships were only minimally engaged at Surigao Strait was that, being without the new radar, they were unable to derive timely firing solutions to engage the Japanese.
    You said "3 of the most modern battleships the US had". None of those battleships were modern. None could be considered among the most modern the US had. All were old and refurbished.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Similar Threads

  1. The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 933
    Last Post: 03-19-2018, 02:38 PM
  2. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  3. The Warden Collection (merged thread)
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 05:56 PM
  4. Stryker collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 05-25-2013, 06:26 AM
  5. The John Boyd collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 10:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •