Jump to content

Mourneblade

Players
  • Content Сount

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mourneblade

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    its on P 85
  2. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    Well that is the thing though... they did not penetrate...and while I have the utmost respect for Dunlin and Garzke they are using information directly from the manufacturer.... one thing to note however both PoW and KGV were suffering from gun malfunctions with a 50% or less firing rate which is not the ideal firing conditions... it is entirely possible that this could have affected the performance of the shell....however I still feel that the angles are the likelier culprit consider the slow velocity of the 14in shell and its inherent lack of penetration would result in deflections the more the angle was increased....
  3. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    Well according to Robert Jackson "Bismarck" 2002 there were numerous 14in dents in the belt of Bismarck.... so there is your credible author...
  4. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    I find it odd that you have not even considered the possibility that these hits were not done at perfect angles...while we can agree that a shot by a British 14/45 at 15k yard can punch through 320mm of armor (although KC armor might even have defeated that) if hit flat... that does not mean that those hits were done flat... in fact only at the very middle of Bismarck was the Belt armor vertical, and even then that would require KGV to be exactly perpendicular to Bismarck to pen its belt without any pitch or yaw....in stormy seas, with Bismarck Listing to port as the engagement begins... So you are right on paper, but because you did not account for firing angle, slope angle, and shell trajectory your argument falls apart because you are theory crafting, without all the variables, versus reality....
  5. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    2 is not several.... also KGV did move to back out to plunging range unless you want to retell the story with your own opinion and change history.... the Muzzle Velocity of the 14in guns of KGV were no match for the armor layout of Bismarck.... it was only the High Velocity 16in guns of Rodney that made the fatal hits... You keep putting down the armor scheme then use how good it was as an argument defense.... you cannot have it both ways... Either the Bismarck's Armor was good or it was not.... History and half of your arguments say it was good... Ill go with that.... and it was 120mm oblique.... and no one is debating that Plunging fire could have hurt Bismarck, as the hit from PoW did when it fractured the citadel wall by hitting underneath the Belt.....but the fact of the matter is that it was not critically wounded by plunging fire, and the fatal hits were done in places that would have hurt any other BB.....
  6. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    During the second Ballard expedition there were two 16 in holes in the Belt armor... and numerous 14in dents as the 14in shells failed to pen.... even these two 16in shells failed to penetrate the citadel.....and yes the deck was penetrated as Mr Stanz describes... The the 145 upper belt was penetrated numerous times.... Understand though none of these were fatal shots.... the Salvo at 902 from Rodney is what mission killed the Bismarck (besides the Ark Royal's rudder hit of course)... all the other damage was no where near as significant... regardless of what Mr Nathan O says the most serious hits would have hurt any other BB in a similar way.
  7. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    Again though, his conclusions on the weaknesses on Bismarck do not account for those very same weaknesses on ALL battleships... that is his biggest failing. For example Dunlin and Garzke explain that the same rudder hit on Iowa would more than likely have the same consequences, Its called putting things into perspective. Nathan O does not do this and he faults the Bismarck for having these weaknesses without putting things into the right context and perspective... which basically costs him credibility... It would be like blaming a BMW wreck on a tire that blew out, and then saying well those BMWs should have tires that cannot blow out...well every vehicle has tires that can blow out...Or a broken windshield, or running out of fuel... these are things that can happen to all vehicles and are not inherent to just one specific vehicle... As to your Spitfire/BF109 argument...It was not that the Spitfire was a better plane, it fell to how they were employed. Once Goring called for the 109s to escort the bombers it pretty much ended the battle... the 109s were a pure air superiority interceptor and their advantage was fighting at 30k and being able to attack with surprise... The worst thing that could be done with those fighters was put them at mid altitudes and lower speed in a defensive formation... this gave the Spitfires a tactical advantage and an engineering one since the Spit out performed the 109s at mid altitudes...This coupled with the fact that the RAF was able to completely avoid Goring's fighter sweeps because of Radar.... Was the Spit a better fighter than the 109?.. not really...and they would one up each other for the rest of the war.
  8. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    Not really, the people who helped with the forensics are extremely credible GL with the debate though.... The hole in the side does not have the same characteristics of a torpedo hit.... The ship was set to scuttle and most of the command staff were dead so no one ordered the flags lowered... really? it rolled to port after taking torps to the starboard..... physics 101 that's not how that works... and there is conclusive evidence that the port side torpedo actually hit above the deck... meaning her deck was awash at the time of impact... Intact wrecks at that pressure depth that were not already filled with water... yeah good luck with that.. Scuttling charges were not an act of defiance, they were to keep the British from taking her as a prize... but hey believe what you want... again the Marine Forensics experts are all experts in this field... unless you think Dunlin, Garzke, and Jurens are all not experts... Oh how about this... why not preset expert rebuttal with factual links so we can all see where you are getting your info from.
  9. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    I have some difficulty with Nathan O. Most of his negative opinions on Bismarck, IE weaknesses never really showed up IRL in the actual ship, in that they were not what killed it... This analysis was done prior to Bismarck being found and much was refuted by actual forensics from the Ballard trips... For Example... the Location where the Bismarck was torpedoed would have crippled any other ship the same way...so to say it was a weakness, well an Iowa would not have been able to steer any better, In Fact there is an example of the USS Intrepid losing her steering, and her 4 props could not control the ship alone except on glass waters...IE if every Capitol ship afloat would have suffered the same fate, it is not an inherent weakness to just the Bismarck... its actually the Achilles Heel of ALL capitol ships. The same goes for the Fire Control System... at that range any ship, including Yamato, if struck by the Salvo Rodney fired at 9:02 would have suffered a similar fate..British 16in guns were no joke, and that was Rodney's best salvo the entire fight landing multiple 16 shells against the most critical areas of the Bridge, Fire Control, and turret relays....Duke of York took a hit to its fire control during the battle at North Cape and was unable to fire afterward, and that was an 11" shell....Once again, if every Battleship suffers from the same weakness than it is not a weakness to a specific class but an overall weakness of Battleships as a whole. So I dispute his conclusions when he offers zero comparison examples that hold up to scrutiny....IE name a ship that could have survived a similar hit.... The Forensics done on the Ballard expeditions were much more reliable. https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/2008%20Proceedings%20Documents/ASNE%20Day%202008/BISMARCK.pdf Not only that Nathan O completely ignores the fact that German ship's like Tirpitz and Scharnhorst had blind fire capability as early as late 41, and that during the Battle of North Cape Scharnhorst was able to land blind hits once DoY was unable to jam Scharnhorst's Radar.... So you can continue to use data from 1994, or you can use the real forensics from the actual ship and the Ballard team that was done more recent and offered better conclusions...IE if you want an armor penetration and armor composition expert Nathan O is your man... If you want Marine Forensics on Bismarck, ill go with Robert O. Dulin, Jr.,William H. Garzke, Jr. and William Jurens
  10. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    The Bismarck class is not an "All or nothing" armor scheme... it is a layered defense designed to defeat an enemy shell Three ways... either the belt defeats it, or if it penetrates the belt the second 120 angled armor defeats the rest, then there is a third layer around the Citadel for anything that gets by....
  11. Mourneblade

    North Carolina vs Tirpitz

    Combined fleet is a joke site with outdated and inaccurate information and should not be considered credible...
  12. Mourneblade

    Pay 2 Win with the Tirpitz

    I understand what you are saying.... you pull an amazing 34% accuracy in your Warspite... but you are limited on firing range.... in the Tirpitz you sport a 29% accuracy, which is the second highest accuracy I have seen in it, where you are engaging them from farther away... unless your holding fire until you are under 15k, which I doubt..... Understand this... I fully support a dispersion reduction for Tirpitz to a 215-225 max dispersion....
  13. Mourneblade

    Pay 2 Win with the Tirpitz

    p1j2i3l4, on 02 September 2015 - 05:58 PM, said: I personally find the Tirpitz to be extremely accurate but VS higher tied it struggles to pen. Tier10 game you will struggle your definition of "extremely accurate" and mine are different... 26% accuracy, which is what you have currently, is not my definition of "Extremely Accurate" xCaptainObviousx, on 02 September 2015 - 06:25 PM, said: so 12 km is closer in the Warspite than 12 km in the Tirpitz? OK, now we're on the same page. uhg if your are measuring per engagement, and writing down specifics, obviously not..... but if you are going off memory, then generally speaking the Warspite is engaging at a much closer range.
  14. Mourneblade

    Pay 2 Win with the Tirpitz

    the NC is firing triple guns which masks Dispersion a bit better....The Warspite typically engages at a much closer range.
  15. Mourneblade

    Pay 2 Win with the Tirpitz

    276m Dispersion....that's what happens when you increase its historic dispersion (112m @ 21k) by 246%....
×