Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
Thanks Tree19Thanks

Thread: i don't get it this

  1. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    21,718
    Thanks
    4184

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Good point.

    America designed the Sherman tank based on the size of the ships that would carry them and they were severely outmatched in Europe.

    These design decisions just seem stupid.
    Tanks have to be designed with several considerations in mind: firepower, armor protection, maneuverability. There are trade offs. Panther may of been the best all around tank for the Germans but the Tiger when used in it's ideal environment was a killer. Sherman had good speed but little else. Until they put a decent gun in it..way late in the war. The German 88 was probably the most deadly gun on the battlefield or in the sky.

  2. #22
    No mercy for losers Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    46,084
    Thanks
    22867

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Why do you liberals have to troll a perfectly good thread?
    I was gonna post "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" but ships don't really fall, they sink. So I opted for a shorter post.

    This is what I was getting at:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    It doesn't, in war, not always, that's the thing. The Germans, for example, had way larger and seemingly more powerful tanks than Red Army. But Soviet Union simply made way more T-34s and such, than Germany made Panzers. And overwhelmed them with those sheer numbers, at Kursk, for example
    Thanks, @The Man, for making my point.
    Thanks from The Man

  3. #23
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,899
    Thanks
    38893

    From
    Nashville, TN
    All those ships sunk in the Naval Battles off Guadalcanal are now a protected monument. That is where the Atlanta went down with all five Sullivan brothers aboard....it is called Iron Bottom Sound. A great war movie with some reference to those battles, In Harm's Way.



    From Pearl Harbor until we turned the tide at Guadalcanal. No one could touch John Wayne as a war movie hero

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,165
    Thanks
    2650

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    America in WWII built our battleships based on if they could fit through the Panama Canal.

    This means that the Japanese could build bigger ones then us.

    Our Iowa class ships were thereby limited to their size and thus their armaments.



    Compared to:



    So I get that they needed to use the Canal for a shortcut but why couldn't they just build a bigger one and sail it around South America?

    What does it take, like a week extra or something?

    Hell, with all the time it took to build the ship what's an extra week to compete with what Japan was building?
    Mr. Spooky,

    A week is a lifetime if you need it now.
    Thanks from StanStill

  5. #25
    Senior Member Sparta's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,905
    Thanks
    8065

    From
    Connecticut
    The company which owned the canal held exclusive rights for westward passage of battleships, the navy needed all available funds at that point in the war because they were transitioning uniforms from khaki to white (which would later revert to khaki) so they complied in an effort to dodge an "avoidance surcharge".
    Thanks from boontito

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,165
    Thanks
    2650

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobfitcher View Post
    Not sure about time, but a quick search tells me by using the Panama Canal, ships save 7,872 miles by bypassing the trip around South America.
    Mr. fitcher,

    Add to this, the Top speed of an North Carolina Classs battleship is 28 knots, or 32 mph, Iowa Class, 32 knots, or 37 mph. That translates to 774 miles/day, and 884 miles/day, respectively. For the 7872 mile detour, that 10 days and 9 days.

    But remember, that is top speed, which a ship cannot maintain for 10 days straight. Assuming they can go balls out at 3/4 speed, that 13 days and 12 days. In calm seas. However, Cape horn is notorious for foul weather. Assume you lose at least a couple of days dealing with the weather. Then consider, ships generally do not travel alone. The need support ships, distroyers to guard against subs, etc. Moving a flotilla further slows the ship down. Then there's the fact that naval flotilla do no travel in straight lines. Zig sagging back an fourth may add another 300-500 miles into the mix.

    Finally, there is the issue of resources. The navy would have to replenish 14 days of fuel and supplies before the ship would be battle ready. This would require the ship to go to a port like Hawaii, or North Carolina before moving to where they are needed. A ship coming through the canal would be fully stocked, and ready to be deployed.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,785
    Thanks
    9573

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    America in WWII built our battleships based on if they could fit through the Panama Canal.

    This means that the Japanese could build bigger ones then us.

    Our Iowa class ships were thereby limited to their size and thus their armaments.



    Compared to:



    So I get that they needed to use the Canal for a shortcut but why couldn't they just build a bigger one and sail it around South America?

    What does it take, like a week extra or something?

    Hell, with all the time it took to build the ship what's an extra week to compete with what Japan was building?
    We're lucky we won that race war between the yellow race and the white race in the Pacific.

  8. #28
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10872

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. fitcher,

    Add to this, the Top speed of an North Carolina Classs battleship is 28 knots, or 32 mph, Iowa Class, 32 knots, or 37 mph. That translates to 774 miles/day, and 884 miles/day, respectively. For the 7872 mile detour, that 10 days and 9 days.

    But remember, that is top speed, which a ship cannot maintain for 10 days straight. Assuming they can go balls out at 3/4 speed, that 13 days and 12 days. In calm seas. However, Cape horn is notorious for foul weather. Assume you lose at least a couple of days dealing with the weather. Then consider, ships generally do not travel alone. The need support ships, distroyers to guard against subs, etc. Moving a flotilla further slows the ship down. Then there's the fact that naval flotilla do no travel in straight lines. Zig sagging back an fourth may add another 300-500 miles into the mix.

    Finally, there is the issue of resources. The navy would have to replenish 14 days of fuel and supplies before the ship would be battle ready. This would require the ship to go to a port like Hawaii, or North Carolina before moving to where they are needed. A ship coming through the canal would be fully stocked, and ready to be deployed.
    Yes but it's not like we were in that huge of a rush.

    Hell, how long did it take us to get our fleets and troops ready to start the isle hopping?

    An extra month or two to get a ship that can take on the Yamato class seems worth it.

    Remember that they started building these in 1937, long before we knew the importance of the aircraft carrier.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,165
    Thanks
    2650

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Yes but it's not like we were in that huge of a rush.

    Hell, how long did it take us to get our fleets and troops ready to start the isle hopping?

    An extra month or two to get a ship that can take on the Yamato class seems worth it.

    Remember that they started building these in 1937, long before we knew the importance of the aircraft carrier.
    Mr. Spooky,

    And in 1937, that was also 3 years before the launch of the Yamamoto and Bismarck class battleships were launched.

    And in WWII, the age of the naval battle had passed. Battleships became fixed gun platforms for use against entrench troops on land.

  10. #30
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10872

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. Spooky,

    And in 1937, that was also 3 years before the launch of the Yamamoto and Bismarck class battleships were launched.

    And in WWII, the age of the naval battle had passed. Battleships became fixed gun platforms for use against entrench troops on land.
    Well you would be kind of wrong on that Kallie.


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed