header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: OT - Weird History

 (Read 24646 times)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 58118
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #602 on: April 24, 2022, 04:48:59 PM »
Yes, it's an intimidating term, I think.  It sounds evil.  The British dreadnaught changed the era.  Some later BBs are referred to as "super dreadnaughts" built closer to WW One. 

Some argue the Iowa class is more of a battlecruiser than battleship.  I don't get too hung up on such distinctions.

The Lexington and Yorktown were built on battlecruiser hulls.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 58118
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #603 on: April 26, 2022, 09:50:50 AM »

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 28046
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #604 on: April 26, 2022, 09:52:07 AM »
what could go wrong??
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

longhorn320

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7576
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #605 on: April 26, 2022, 11:46:05 AM »
and its still happening to this day
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 13901
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #606 on: April 26, 2022, 01:55:44 PM »
Check this guys site out a bunch of wild true stories click on his name then another screen appears with all the different segments

https://youtu.be/sx14YtiLFIM
"I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member" -  Groucho Marx

medinabuckeye1

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6407
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #607 on: April 26, 2022, 05:01:19 PM »
Some revisionist brit on YT did a whole segment on how the RAF could get the job done if for some reason the USAF couldn't.Of course quite a few people i.e. pilots and war historians corrected his misconceptions.The guy is suppose to be a historian of some note but was steered out of his fallacies fairly fast.He was saying there were Lancaster crews standing by(BULLSHIT).Though the lanc was a great plane for the ETO and could carry more than 10,000 lbs it certainly didn't have the range,speed or ceiling to get away from the repercussion blast of the Bomb fast/far enough
If you want to learn more than you ever wanted to know about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and the Manhattan Project in general I highly recommend a trip to the Trinity Site (where they tested the first one on July 16,1945).  It is only open twice a year, something like the first Saturdays in April and October.  Anyway, I went once and they had a LOT of information.  It was quite fascinating.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6407
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #608 on: April 26, 2022, 05:04:10 PM »
The Dreadnought displaced 18,000 tons (more than 20,000 tons full load), was 526 feet (160 m) long, and carried a crew of about 800. Its four propeller shafts, powered by steam turbines instead of the traditional steam pistons, gave it an unprecedented top speed of 21 knots. Because recent improvements in naval gunnery had made it unnecessary to prepare for short-range battle, Dreadnought carried no guns of secondary calibre. Instead, it mounted a single-calibre main armament of 10 12-inch guns in five twin turrets. In addition, 24 3-inch quick-firing guns, 5 Maxim machine guns, and 4 torpedo tubes were added for fighting off destroyers and torpedo boats.


The Dreadnought immediately made all preceding battleships obsolete, but by World War I it was obsolescent itself, having been outclassed by faster “superdreadnoughts” carrying bigger guns. The Dreadnought’s only notable engagement of the war was the ramming and sinking of a German U-boat near the Pentland Firth, Scotland, in March 1915. Placed in reserve in 1919, the ship was sold for scrap the following year and broken up in 1923.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaThis article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Augustyn.
Your math is off where I bolded.  If it had five twin turrets that makes 10 guns.  It it had 12 guns in twin turrets then it must have had six turrets.  

I'll look it up . . .

Per wiki it was 10 guns in five twin turrets.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6407
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #609 on: April 26, 2022, 05:39:11 PM »
Yes, it's an intimidating term, I think.  It sounds evil.  The British dreadnaught changed the era.  Some later BBs are referred to as "super dreadnaughts" built closer to WW One.

Some argue the Iowa class is more of a battlecruiser than battleship.  I don't get too hung up on such distinctions.

The Lexington and Yorktown were built on battlecruiser hulls.
The Iowa Class were generally referred to as Fast Battleships.  They were MUCH more well armored than a typical Battlecruiser.  

Off the top of my head simplified explanation of the terms:
Cruisers:
Cruisers were smaller and generally faster than Battleships.  The Washington Naval Treaty did not explicitly define "Cruisers" but they were de-facto defined because the Treaty limited the major ships (Battleships, Battlecruisers, and Aircraft Carriers) and the "other" were limited to not more than 10,000 tons each and with guns not larger than 8".  

Battleships:
Battleships were the heavyweight fighters.  They carried large guns and sufficient armor to stand up to hits from equally large opposing guns.  To wit, the concept of "balanced Battleship" existed even before Dreadnaught and demanded that a Battleship should have sufficient armor to withstand a hit from a gun equal to it's own.  They were huge, extremely well armed, and extremely well armored.  

Battlecruisers:
Battlecruisers were more-or-less a compromise between Battleships and Cruisers.  They had Battleship guns but only Cruiser Armor.  Ie, they were NOT a "balanced" ship and could NOT withstand hits from guns equal to their own.  However, they were MUCH faster than contemporary Battleships.  They had Cruiser speed.  The theory here was that Battlecruisers could outrun anything they couldn't pulverize and pulverize anything they couldn't outrun.  

Fast Battleships:
This was a much later innovation.  The Battleships of the WWI era could only make about 20 kn.  For example, the American Colorado Class had a top speed of 21 kn.  Three were completed shortly after WWI with the fourth (Washington) being scrapped in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.  The next class of US Battleships was the North Carolina Class which did not come into service until two decades later, just before WWII (the two ships were commissioned in April and May of 1941).  The North Carolina class had a top speed of 28 kn.  Top speeds of US BB's starting with Colorado:
  • 21 kn Colorado Class (Colorado, Maryland, West Virginia, and the never completed Washington)
  • 28 kn North Carolina Class (North Carolina, Washington)
  • 27.5 kn South Dakota Class (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama)
  • 33 kn Iowa Class (Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin and the never completed Illinois and Kentucky)
  • 28 kn Montana Class (None ever laid down but five were planned:  Montana, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Louisiana)

Fast Battleships like the 33 kn Iowas effectively rendered all Battlecruisers obsolete but it wasn't possible to get that kind of speed along with large guns and sufficient armor on a Treaty-limited Battleship.  The South Dakota's more-or-less complied with the then existing treaties so they were limited to around 35,000 tons.  The Iowa's were fully post-treaty ships so they were built without regard to such limitations and displaced nearly 60,000 tons at full load (New Jersey actually did displace a full 60,000 in it's Vietnam era tour).  

The US laid down several Battlecruisers during WWI and, as you noted above, Lexington and Yorktown were converted from Battlecruisers to Aircraft Carriers during construction in order to comply with the Treaty.  The US also built the Iowa Class Fast Battleships and a rather curious class of "Large Cruisers" known as the Alaska Class.  The US Navy has consistently discouraged referring to the Alaska's as "Battlecruisers".  Also, the Alaska's were never named using the "CC" designation reserved for Battlecruisers but they also didn't get the "CA" used for cruisers.  Instead they were "CB-1, CB-2, and CB-3" (Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii).  Also note the names.  They were not named after states like Battleships nor after Cities like Cruisers.  Instead they were named after territories which seems like it fits between?  


The Alaska's were officially "Large Cruisers".  They displaced about 30,000 - 35,000 tons which is as large as Treaty Battleships (well, it would have been except that basically everybody was cheating during the treaty era it was just a question of by how much).  They had 12" guns so much smaller than contemporary BB's (16+) and armor somewhere between a Cruiser and a Battleship along with 33 kn speed.  

The Alaska's made very good Carrier escorts which was all that really mattered by the time they came online but it has often been pointed out that for the price of one Alaska Class Large Cruiser the US could have built several Baltimore Class Cruisers and as Carrier Escorts it is pretty hard to argue that one Alaska is better than three Baltimore's.  The Alaska's were designed to deal with Japanese ships that were planned (or believed to be planned) but by the time they were commissioned the Japanese Navy had been almost completely converted into Coral Reefs by US Carrier Aircraft so their intended use was gone before they were available.  


longhorn320

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 7576
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #610 on: April 26, 2022, 05:39:25 PM »
Your math is off where I bolded.  If it had five twin turrets that makes 10 guns.  It it had 12 guns in twin turrets then it must have had six turrets. 

I'll look it up . . .

Per wiki it was 10 guns in five twin turrets. 
He did say 10 12" guns not 12 guns
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.

medinabuckeye1

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6407
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #611 on: April 26, 2022, 10:15:31 PM »
He did say 10 12" guns not 12 guns
Oops, I read it wrong 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 58118
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #612 on: April 27, 2022, 07:59:10 AM »
The evolution of armor is fascinating to me.  The Musee des Blindes in Saumur, France, has lined up German panzers from prewar to near the end of the war.  This is about 1939 to 1944, just five years, and the increase in size and power was astonishing.  Germany started the war mostly with Panzer IIs, light tanks by any metric, and quite a few Czech tanks (that were better than Panzer IIs) and a relatively modest number of Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs (short barreled, meant for infantry support).  

Folks criticize the US Sherman, but it was better than any of these, except the later model IIIs and upgunned IVs that came out about the same time.

As with naval guns, tank guns use the term caliber to mean ratio of barrel length to diameter at the breech.  A longer gun is going to be a more powerful gun, so a 75 mm/24 (below) caliber won't be nearly as powerful as a 75 mm/71 caliber.




Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 58118
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #613 on: April 27, 2022, 08:25:09 AM »


The closest is the Panzer II equipped with a 20 mm main gun, really intended to shoot very light tanks and infantry.  Going down the line is the III, then the IV with the very useful long 75 mm gun, and then the Tiger.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 58118
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #614 on: April 27, 2022, 08:26:06 AM »


The Tiger shown here is next to the Panzer IV.  It had the famous 88 mm main gun, but was slow and lacked sloped armor.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 58118
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Weird History
« Reply #615 on: April 27, 2022, 08:28:20 AM »


The "Panther", with sloped armor, called a medium tank, with a very powerful 75 mm main gun.  It's design was somewhat taken from the Russian T-34, or at least it shared some basic features.  It was a very good tank overall but early models were very unreliable mechanically.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.