|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jul 19, 2017 18:34:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 20, 2017 15:46:06 GMT -6
Cool  (well, not the bit about us making the planet more radioactive, but more generally!) |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jul 25, 2017 18:38:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 27, 2017 16:25:19 GMT -6
It is - beyond the "it's good it never happened because a lot of people would have died" aspect, it's a bit of a shame we never saw a proper gun-duel between US and Japanese heavies, as it leaves the assessment of the capabilities of both largely to theorycrafting, which has its flaws. The analysis in video seems to be pretty good, but there just isn't enough data from actual wartime experience to be confident that it wouldn't have helped in a capital ship clash.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 27, 2017 16:44:19 GMT -6
It is - beyond the "it's good it never happened because a lot of people would have died" aspect, it's a bit of a shame we never saw a proper gun-duel between US and Japanese heavies, as it leaves the assessment of the capabilities of both largely to theorycrafting, which has its flaws. The analysis in video seems to be pretty good, but there just isn't enough data from actual wartime experience to be confident that it wouldn't have helped in a capital ship clash. Evan's and Peattie state that the US by the 1930's was aware of the danger of underwater shots and applied special armor patches to the North Carolina and all battleships afterward were designed to resist underwater shell hits. The video, while nice, is a direct quote from Evan's and Peattie's Kaigun, Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy 18897-1941; Pages 291-292. Just a note about the Japanese name for this technique; Suichudan. I have the book in print and in eBook. |
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 27, 2017 20:45:12 GMT -6
It is - beyond the "it's good it never happened because a lot of people would have died" aspect, it's a bit of a shame we never saw a proper gun-duel between US and Japanese heavies, as it leaves the assessment of the capabilities of both largely to theorycrafting, which has its flaws. The analysis in video seems to be pretty good, but there just isn't enough data from actual wartime experience to be confident that it wouldn't have helped in a capital ship clash. Evan's and Peattie state that the US by the 1930's was aware of the danger of underwater shots and applied special armor patches to the North Carolina and all battleships afterward were designed to resist underwater shell hits. The video, while nice, is a direct quote from Evan's and Peattie's Kaigun, Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy 18897-1941; Pages 291-292. Just a note about the Japanese name for this technique; Suichudan. I have the book in print and in eBook. Ditto. :] |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 28, 2017 16:44:49 GMT -6
Evan's and Peattie state that the US by the 1930's was aware of the danger of underwater shots and applied special armor patches to the North Carolina and all battleships afterward were designed to resist underwater shell hits. The video, while nice, is a direct quote from Evan's and Peattie's Kaigun, Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy 18897-1941; Pages 291-292. Just a note about the Japanese name for this technique; Suichudan. I have the book in print and in eBook. Aye, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that the video was incorrect (anything but - if Justin Pike was advising on it, I'd have a high degree of confidence on it's accuracy) but that there's often a big difference between designed to do something and what actually happens in combat - that was the gist behind my comment . |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 28, 2017 17:06:16 GMT -6
Evan's and Peattie state that the US by the 1930's was aware of the danger of underwater shots and applied special armor patches to the North Carolina and all battleships afterward were designed to resist underwater shell hits. The video, while nice, is a direct quote from Evan's and Peattie's Kaigun, Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy 18897-1941; Pages 291-292. Just a note about the Japanese name for this technique; Suichudan. I have the book in print and in eBook. Aye, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that the video was incorrect (anything but - if Justin Pike was advising on it, I'd have a high degree of confidence on it's accuracy) but that there's often a big difference between designed to do something and what actually happens in combat - that was the gist behind my comment . I know, I was just pointing out that what he was stating was almost a direct quote from Peattie and Evans. No worries. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 9, 2017 8:25:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Sept 8, 2017 18:45:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Oct 19, 2017 18:43:33 GMT -6
interesting discussion on inter-war naval/air thinking and hindsight youtu.be/_1iE533R7vQwhen the tech is available to you, without hindsight it's interesting thinking about figuring out if it's the actual right direction to go in which is very hard to replicate in games imagine in RtW2 if there was a 50/50 chance every game that carriers are NOT the way to go lol |
|
(well, not the bit about us making the planet more radioactive, but more generally!)
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
