Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Panzer General 3D

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:48 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:Effective firing range, 20km for Virginia´s 20cm guns, 29km for Takao´s.

Virginia´s 30cm guns, similiar rate of fire, max effective range 17km.

Yea, at 15deg, again common practice to modify and upgrade turrets from better elevation as tech allowed, by WWII they most likely would have had 40-50 deg elevation with correspondingly greater ranges.

Tenshinai wrote:Oh and BTW, the Virginia class superposed main turrets were a major failure point, BAD idea.
no, not bad idea bad engineering due to period limits. if the Virginias had been retained, a major overhaul would have occurred on the order of the Arkansas/Texas. likely modifications would have been replacement of VTEs with diesel boilers and turbines, replacement of main turrets with mdern turrets (on order of Connecticut/Mississippi class with improved elevation), removal of all secondary/tertiary guns and replacement with 8-10 5"/51 in upper deck casemates and 10-12 high angle open deck mounts with 5"/25 and/or 3"/50 AA guns (again per other DN rebuilds such as the Italian DNs).
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:13 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:They were retired for good reason.
Again, THERE IS A REASON WHY PRE-DN BBs WAS CONSIDERED OBSOLETE AND WERE RETIRED.
Yea, because it would cost money to upgrade, when everyone was standing down from WWI. You seen to forget that I said Virginia or Connecticut, or other PDs.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:55 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:the Long Lance torpedo was ... a clear threat against stuff like the Iowa or South Dakota!


No they weren't a LL would have done damage but much smaller cruisers survived hits, a SD (much less an Iowa) would be unlikely to receive fatal damage from the extremely unlikely event of an actual hit.

Tenshinai wrote:You MIGHT just want to remember that the Type 93 was still the best torpedo during the whole of WWII.


Then why didn't everybody else copy it, especially after the war? You might want to remember that, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Tenshinai wrote:And you MIGHT just want to think about exactly how many ships were hit by torpedoes during WWII compared to not.
one of us should, that being very few, and most at point-blank night-action range. As pointed out before, the IJN Main Fleet with all of its best cruisers and destroyers couldn't land a single one on 4 lumbering CVEs with only 3 DDs and 1DE escorting, hulls based on civilian transports and speeds less than that of the Virginia.
Tenshinai wrote:And then realise that a Takao has SIXTEEN TUBES plus reloads.

No, 8 depending on time frame. she at various tiems had 1 quad mount(4) per side, upgraded to 2 (8) per side.
Tenshinai wrote:And against a sluggish ship like a pre-DN BB.
Again, where do you get this erroneous idea?
Tenshinai wrote:1 hit is likely severe damage or sinking, 3 hits is pretty much a guaranteed sinking no matter what.
at anything over 700m 1 hit extremely unlikely, 3 hits non-existent
Tenshinai wrote:You seriously need to take a very close look at just how the Type 93 was used, because the reason it got relatively few hits during WWII is because it was often used at ranges that USN torpedoes couldn´t even reach.
No, it was mostly used in point-blank night battles, with little accuracy, and a few lucky shots. Look at Salvo Island; close range (because it was night and anything more was beyond visual range) full torpedo spread from Chōkai, all 4 Furutaka/Aoba's and a DD, and scored a total of 3 hits against 2 large heavy Cruisers, sailing slow and not maneuvering. Then engaged 3 more large heavy cruisers sailing slow in formation, not maneuvering, yet Astoria was not hit by any TTs and Quincy was initially hit by Tenryū's (previously maligned) 21" torpedoes. Yes, she later took a hit from Aoba but was already crippled at the time (I would hope she could hit a cripple). The LL was not the best TT of the war, it was the biggest, not the same thing. The US 21" TTs were much better, and (once issues from interwar negligence was cleared up) better designed. The US, UK and Germans had much better (and more advanced) targeting systems than the IJN, and more sophisticated torpedoes (much better once the teething issues were resolved), again refer to Samar where US TTs crippled 2 cruisers and a battleship to no hits on lumbering CVE by the IJN.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:17 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Anyway, I ran the O'Connor campaign, have to give my guys all advantages and theirs all disadvantages to even out the hit disparity but completed with all major victories and no losses (lots of reconstituting though) Now I'm muddling through the Kesselring campaign, finished Italy now in France. I have been having to gang up with my 3 fighters just to down 1 target, if I spread damage and don't down 1 then they all disappear and reappear fully repaired, something I have to do with mine when they fail to kill them. I am disappointed that there was no Russian campaign, SP1-3 all had the Russians, who makes a WWII game with 'Panzer' in the title and forgets to include the Russians?
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by DDHv   » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:10 pm

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:59 pm

MAD-4A wrote:
Tenshinai wrote: snip
bad engineering due to period limits. if the Virginias had been retained, a major overhaul would have occurred on the order of the Arkansas/Texas. likely modifications would have been replacement of VTEs with diesel boilers and turbines, snip
:shock:
Diesel boilers? Are you postulating boilers heated by the exhaust to increase efficiency
:?::
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:46 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

DDHv wrote:Diesel
Typo - in haste - I meant "oil-fired" boilers - like the Bureau Express mounted in the USS Texas. They provide much more power for less weight and relieve the ship of much of its fuel weight by replacing the coal bunkers with oil tanks, though Diesel fired boilers are possible.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by Tenshinai   » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:57 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Then why didn't everybody else copy it, especially after the war? You might want to remember that, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."


Because it took several years of testing to make it work well, and during the war, electrical torpedoes started to become the norm, along with improvements in both batteries and engines as well as the addition of more effective seekers, postwar the advantage of the highspeed longrange torpedoes were not worth the effort of learning how to handle liquid oxygen on your ships.

Or more correctly, it probably WAS worth it up until the 1970s, but noone wanted to spend the money for it.

Speed does not equal maneuverability. In-fact the two are diametrically opposed.


Yes and no. It doesn´t matter if your turning curve is craptacular, if you can pull it while moving at twice the speed of the "other guy". And have you checked how much improved turning curves gets once they slow down to the "crawling" speed of a pre-DN BB?
Oh and then there´s the little part about maneuverability that includes acceleration...

Your perfectly correct in saying that their maneuverability sucks. As long as you compare with peer ships. But once you compare to 30 year older ships?

one of us should, that being very few, and most at point-blank night-action range. As pointed out before, the IJN Main Fleet with all of its best cruisers and destroyers couldn't land a single one on 4 lumbering CVEs with only 3 DDs and 1DE escorting, hulls based on civilian transports and speeds less than that of the Virginia.


Because a training cruiser with less armour than most destroyers being shelled by a halfdozen ships, oh and continuously attacked by aircraft and those nearby battleships, plural, using OLD TORPEDOES, not hitting?

Oh my how amazingly strange. :roll:

You´re throwing around comparisons that have zero relevance.

You keep comparing IJN ability at the point where it had already lost >90% of it´s experienced crews with USN at its absolute best, that´s just absurd.

Hey, amazing idea, how about we use the USN from 1941 for comparisons instead? At the time where it could MAYBE fight its way out of a wet paperbag, IF someone gave them scissors and a hard shove in the right direction. :roll:

No, 8 depending on time frame. she at various tiems had 1 quad mount(4) per side, upgraded to 2 (8) per side.


Right, so you constantly assume the best possible model or equipment for ONE side, but not for the other? Yeah, nice bias there.

is the Chikuma with her superstructure replaced by a giant crater from a 2000lb bomb because she couldn't turn fast enough to dodge it


:roll:

Do you have ANY idea what you´re talking about? Seriously? Please take a lesson about what PROBABILITIES is from David Weber.
He´s written about it in a bundle of places already.

Just as intentionally hitting a moving ship with a bomb is NOT EASY, dodging is MUCH harder still, doing it with an expert helmsman and lookout team vs a noob attacking pilot, that is something that has a fair chance of being repeated.

Doing it again and again with a halfassed crew facing dozens of experience pilots?
It´s a matter of time before something hits.

This BTW is also why salvo fire with larger number of guns is MUCH preferable to the non-unified heavy guns of a pre-DN BB.

Again, where do you get this erroneous idea?


Oh, i dunno? Maybe the fact that its engines are greatly inferior, and that its topspeed is just over half that of the other side of the comparison?

at anything over 700m 1 hit extremely unlikely, 3 hits non-existent


:lol:

Are you trying to troll or something?

At 700m you would have a halfdecent chance of killing a destroyer at topspeed.
A monkey would have a fair chance of hitting a BB at that range.

Before WWII, IJN considered 2000m to be "point blank range" for Type 93.
They also considered 20000m to be a reasonable range to start launching torpedoes at capital ship groups, expecting a 15% hitrate. While that was based on years of realistic testfiring, it was, as always, still overoptimistic, it was however also based on attacking a group of capital ships rather than the cruisers and destroyers which during the war ended up as the actual targets.

Actual data from WWII suggests a likely hitrate of around 5% or slightly better at long range(ie beyond 10000m) 25% at medium range and better than 50% at close range.

Torpedoes are not meant to be 1 shot 1 hit weapons, but at 700m against a BB? They are.

But hey, you keep coming up with fancy theoretical stuff for your fanwank ship, so, lets say the Takao gets a finalised version of the Type 93.
With the turbine engine of the experimental F3 and the 780kg warhead of the Model 3...
Lovely little thing, with a topspeed of >60 kts. And the keelbreaker warhead was actually considered overkill. Against 1930s battleships.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/o/Long_Lance.htm
The accuracy figure for the torpedo shows that a Long Lance had only about a 1 in 20 chance of actually hitting a battleship at 14 miles

No, it was mostly used in point-blank night battles, with little accuracy, and a few lucky shots. Look at Salvo Island; close range (because it was night and anything more was beyond visual range) full torpedo spread from Chōkai, all 4 Furutaka/Aoba's and a DD, and scored a total of 3 hits against 2 large heavy Cruisers


Oh great, you don´t know shit.

Chokai´s first torpedo launch was at 17000m.
Launched minutes before the first firing of guns.

And lets see: "During the action the eight IJN ships executed 15 launches of 45 Type 93, 4 Type 8 and 12 Type 6 torpedoes, scoring 7 telling hits and 1 dud which damaged USN CA Chicago and sank USN CAs Vincennes and Quincy."

The LL was not the best TT of the war, it was the biggest, not the same thing. The US 21" TTs were much better, and (once issues from interwar negligence was cleared up) better designed.


:lol:

Riiight!

IJN did their homework BEFORE the war, yet USN torpedoes did not reach the reliability levels of the Type 93 during the war at all.
Type 93 was wakeless, USN didn´t manage that until they went electrical.
And USN electrical WWII torpedoes had pathetic performance compared to Type 93.
While accuracy was slightly in favour of the Type 93.

The US, UK and Germans had much better (and more advanced) targeting systems than the IJN


Yes? Those actually had embarassingly little actual effect. German patternrunning torpedoes were actually more effective than acoustic torpedoes.
The Fido was about the only one being truly effective, and that was only because the wallies ruled the air to a ridiculous degree.


But seriously, you totally need to step down from the bias.

Whatever...
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...