Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
seasick	Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4836 (26-May-2006 00:29:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Warships that had lots of hype and lackluster results. [Not in any particular rank or order] 1. Deutchland 'Armored Ships': Weren't as powerful as advertised. Had to go to distant seas to be viable. Were able to be defeated by Treaty Cruisers. 2. Scharnhorst class battleships: A WW2 battleship with underwhelming fire power. 3. Yamato: resource hogs, that couldn't turn the tide of the war. 4. The Long Lance torpedo: Long range with high speed, maybe it will hit the target, bet on it to drift off course. Sank IJN ships when detonated by enemy fire. 5. Iowa class battleships: they may have good capabilities but they were late comers. 6. Motor torpedo boats. vulnerable vulnerable 7. Bismarck: New battleships with inefficient use of displacement. EDIT [August 24, 2006] For Clarification ############################### ############################### REMEMBER: Over rated does not mean it is bad. Over rated means that it didn't live up to its hype. ############################### ############################### *Mark V -- aka* Seasick** Last Edited By: seasick 10-Nov-2007 19:39:49. Edited 4 times.
WarshipAdmin	Re: Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2	#1	[-]
Posts: 1061 (26-May-2006 04:44:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	So you don't like BBs. Are you thinking strategically or tacticallly? For instance, Bismark/Tirpitz did a great deal to affect the use of the Royal Navy merely by existing. Presenter: What happened in Dallas on 22 November 1963? Contestant: I dont know, I wasnt watching it then.
seasick	I'd argue	#2	[-]
Posts: 4836 (26-May-2006 05:16:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Your reply -- *Quote:* Bismark/Tirpitz did a great deal to affect the use of the Royal Navy merely by existing. Yes they did. But it was mostly fear of the unknown. The fog of war made them seem to be more dangerous than they were. *Quote:* So you don't like BBs The Washington and South Dakota classes were the definitive USN battleships for WW2. Rodney, and Nelson were big slow and powerful weapons. KGV class did quite well. IJN Kongo class BBs were the class of BBs that ended up having to carry the load in the Solomons. If the Yamatos were four 40000 ton battleships with 9 sixteen inch guns in a 3x3 arrangement with a top speed of 30 kts they would have been very useful. *Mark V -- aka* Seasick**
Phil Gollin	A good word for Coastal Forces	#3	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 3399 (26-May-2006 07:56:02) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You may be looking purely at the Far East for your criticisms of Coastal Forces. In the English Channel area (and to a lesser extent the Mediterranean) they were useful and had their own vicious little war going on which varied in intensity. Only the widespread use of microwave radar and the overwhelming British defence forces controlled them. Umbra Sumus
A G Williams	It can be difficult to separate...	#4	[-]
Posts: 1697 (26-May-2006 09:29:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	...the quality of a design from what the ships achieved - which could be determined by other factors. For instance, the Hipper class were fine heavy cruisers AFAIK, but they achieved zilch. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
emc	Re: Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2	#5	[-]
Posts: 3919 (26-May-2006 12:40:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Most of the German Navy's 150mm gunned destroyers? These were driven into port in weather where the RN's smaller destroyers remained in action.
lynn1212	MTBs & PTs useless?	#6	[-]
Posts: 634 (26-May-2006 14:41:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ok so they didn't win the war all by themselves but try telling some poor starving IJA grunt on an island somewhere they were useless after he discovers that his lunches for the next three months just got sunk by a couple of PTs. PTs caused a lot of confusion at surgato st one night before the big boys had their target practice. you want useless try the walther powered U- boats
Dave Bender	Re: Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2	#7	[-]
Posts: 6735 (26-May-2006 15:29:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Battleships (all nations).
Kristoffer Mogensen	Re: MTBs & PTs useless?	#8	[-]
Posts: 796 (27-May-2006 02:13:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The fact is that there are certain environments where the light forces matter, these are often the areas where even fishing boats, junks or dhows have usefullness in warfare. If you consider the English Channel in WW II, think about the means by which the Dunkerque evacuation was carried out, and think about the fact that the German "E-boats" was the major menace to cross-channel and NW-european coastal transports well into 1945. Once you go into the Adriatic, the Agaean, the Baltic or any archipelago or similar environment around the world, the stuff you use for ocean warfare doesn't necessarily match the conditions in the theatre. I sometimes wonder if the relatively large and very fast frigate-type ships the US is developing for littoral warfare is the right answer? The concern about transit to the theatre may compromise their effectiveness once they have reached their oprational station. With regards, Kristoffer Mogensen
emc	Re: Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2	#9	[-]
Posts: 3919 (27-May-2006 03:46:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm going to have to weigh in with my disagreement about light forces: the PT boats in the Pacific and their RN equivalents in the Channel and Mediterranean performed quite useful services. In the Pacific, the PT boats performed a lot of quite unglamorous, but nonetheless important, duties, such as interdiction of coastal and interisland shipping, much of which was operating in shoal waters, dropping off and recovering agents and scouts, and pilot rescue. The RN's MTB and MGB forces probably had a more glamorous (glamourous?) war, fighting E-boats, but, again, their services were largely in waters where larger units would have trouble operating. I'm also going to disagree about the Long Lance: it caused significant consternation and damage to the Allied forces in the Pacific while it was still a surprise. While its extreme range was largely worthless -- I suspect that the maximum effective range for an unguided torpedo is no more than distance it can travel in about 5 minutes -- say 8000 yards (7300 m) for a 50 knot (25.5 m/s) (following added in edit) torpedo -- the Long Lance and the other IJN torpedoes and the tactics which engendered them showed weaknesses in the USN's pre-war assumptions about how naval warfare would be performed.
seasick	MTBs & PTs useless?	#10	[-]
Posts: 4836 (27-May-2006 04:55:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* MTBs & PTs useless? Absolutely not. Over Rated is not useless: *Quote:* ok so they didn't win the war all by themselves but try telling some poor starving IJA grunt on an island somewhere they were useless after he discovers that his lunches for the next three months just got sunk by a couple of PTs. PTs caused a lot of confusion at surgato st one night before the big boys had their target practice. you want useless try the walther powered U- boats I agree totally *Mark V -- aka* Seasick**

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2

Over Rated Warships/Naval weapons of WW2

Quick Reply