RE: I just feel like showing off...
September 27, 2015 at 6:07 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2015 at 6:08 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(September 27, 2015 at 5:42 pm)abaris Wrote:What's the BS about the Szent Istvan? I don't really watch the Hysteria Channel, as PT rightly called it.(September 27, 2015 at 5:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's true about the thinking of the strategists and the rapid rush of technology, but it's not true during WW1, when the planes were not a serious threat to the battleships, and submarines were not yet highly effective.
The subs were highly effective in WWI.
The battleships were designed as ships of the line, so the only real battleship bettle was the battle of Skagerak. It doesn't exclude iondividual successes, but the weapon system wasnt as effective as strategists thought it would be.
Btw, one of the most cringeworthy moments I got from the history channel is the sinking of Szent Istvan. They use it again and again like the bullshitters they are, reagrdless if it fits the bill. They never used it in their original context though, which tells a lot about the channel.
And yeah, I read about the motor torpoedoboats when you first linked me to the history of the ship. Totally badass.
As for "the weapon system", I'd say it was an utter failure except in the strategic sense (like nukes, which change your behavior based on fear, rather than the amount of damage they actually do), since the old battleships had a range of something like 18 miles, tops, whereas the new classes of ships were designed to fight battles at ranges more like 25-30 miles... which never happened. Even in the few instances where the battleships engaged one another as ships-of-the-line, it was at much closer range. For instance, in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Hood opened fire first, at a range of 15 miles (though the Prince of Wales' 14" guns could reach out to 20), and the Bismarck could theoretically hit out to 23 miles with its 15". Part of that is because the British commander knew Hood was vulnerable to plunging fire, and wanted to close rapidly so the trajectories would be flatter.
Side note: In looking up the ranges of the guns, I stumbled across a battle we forgot to mention, the Battle of the North cape, Scharnhorst versus Duke of York. The former was only armed with 11" guns, making her barely a battleship, but she was built as one and simply never got refitted with her 15" intended armament.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.