Jump to content

JohnPJones

Members
  • Content Сount

    2,762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6734

Community Reputation

187 Valued poster

5 Followers

About JohnPJones

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,443 profile views
  1. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    There’s a difference between taking casualties and being unable to stop the enemy. how much tonnage they had and how much they built, what matters is the Germans effectively implemented their strategy for most of the war
  2. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    they didn't control the sea well enough to keep the Uboat threat contained. 351 uboats sank 5000 merchant ships 104 warships, 61 Q-ships and damaged another 42 warships... in WWII the Uboats again, did spectacular, meaning the royal navy was ineffective at controlling the sealanes https://uboat.net/special/faq.htm?question=4 if the entire navy was in effective that means the leadership was ineffective.
  3. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    and several were sunk. i never said to be effective you have to sink every ship you engage, but if you have 3 BCs engaging a number of cruisers for an hour or more, and none of those cruisers are crippled or sunk, then those BCs failed to do what they were intended to do, and were thus very ineffective. if 3 BCs engage 5 cruisers and sink/cripple all 5 that would be very effective, a combination in between there is other levels of effectiveness lets take your falklands example. 2 BCs sunk or crippled 3 cruisers out of 5. i'd say they were fairly effective in that situation. however if you want to look at how effective the idea was as a whole, you simply take every instance BCs engaged cruisers and add up how many engagements ended up with no BCs crippling/sinking cruisers. if the first column is a larger number BCs were at least somewhat effective. if the second column is smaller BCs were fairly ineffective. you can then do the same BBs and CLs/CAs engaging cruisers and then compare which group was more effective to determine an overall effectiveness for the BC. but yes the Navies in WWI were by and large very ineffective because the point of a navy is to control sea lanes. the british surface fleet failed at that, and the german surface and submarine fleets failed at that.
  4. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    did any of the ships involved manage to do the job they were designed to do in that battle? if the ships weren't capable of doing what they were intended to do reliably, then you can't say that they were effective.
  5. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    and it's true. if they weren't doing the jobs they were built for, they weren't effective. if 100 people study kung fu and get attacked and only 1 person successfully avoids serious injury, would you say that the other 99 were effective?
  6. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    If huge numbers of cruisers were escaping BCs then the BCs must not have been very effective
  7. JohnPJones

    Soviet Carrier Doctrine.

    I personally trust WATM more than wiki https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wearethemighty.com/military-culture/number-and-letters-ship-designation/amp
  8. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    well then there ya go. if they still matched the definition of a battlecruiser problem solved
  9. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Well if they were still battlecruisers then they would count. if they were converted to BBs then it doesn’t count
  10. JohnPJones

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Let’s put this argument to rest real quick. how many CL/CAs were sunk or crippled in combat by a BC? how many BCs engaged CL/CAs and failed to sink or cripple them? which ever category has the larger number determines if the concept was successful, and the difference between the numbers gives an example of how effective the concept was.
  11. JohnPJones

    CVN(X)

    not really, they have missile launchers that can just be bolted in place, and added or removed as necessary, and you sound a little dramatic considering a kirov only carries about half the air wing of a nimitz or a ford.
  12. JohnPJones

    Naval and Defense News 2019 (con't)

    we've talked about this, but i just want to say richardson is my home boy. he's a traitor and went blue-green lol https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/11/20800111/us-navy-uss-john-s-mccain-crash-ntsb-report-touchscreen-mechanical-controls?fbclid=IwAR3W5AG31ryieZRv_LAF27VRh5pLvz7JR4jryxHdab0Y1GR5cq-dyyo-YZc
  13. JohnPJones

    CVN(X)

    i don't recall anything about armor, but i don't recall equipment changes being a fairly small part and much of it being primarily about how we use it.
  14. JohnPJones

    CVN(X)

    He brought up the modernization to highlight how an ‘obsolete’ class could be reimagined to still be useful after the conditions of the modern battlefield have changed drastically since the ship’s first design and intention
  15. JohnPJones

    Naval and Defense News 2019 (con't)

    It’s not even a RN vessel lol
×