DeliciousFart

Members
  • Content count

    637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    400

Community Reputation

154 Valued poster

About DeliciousFart

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

665 profile views
  1. Actually it's 3 propellant bags at a time. But yeah, the loading process is quite manpower intensive, and I think during Guadalcanal the Washington averaged something like 1.8 salvos per gun per minute. I've seen the Sink-Ex video, but from what I can tell it was from a different turret. When I timed each turret, it was something like 1 minute between salvos.
  2. I obtained a scan of the 1938 Lion's armor profile, and unsurprisingly, she should also have portions of her citadel raised; more specifically, the boiler rooms should peak above the waterline, and the engine rooms should be a bit higher than they are now. It's the same arrangement as on the KGV, which is not surprising because the Lion largely duplicated the KGV's machinery arrangement. Interestingly, the Lion's #2 turret magazines seem to be a bit taller than the others and about the same height as the engine rooms.
  3. Thanks for the input. I believe the Alaska also had a 2 stage hoist compared to the single stage hoists on the NC/SoDak/Iowa. As a side note, the firing clock for the Iowa that I've seen shows a 30 second reload at 45 degree angle. Given that the elevation rate on those guns is 12 deg/sec, would something like a 26 second reload at close range be possible? Is there any documentation to support this?
  4. Double post.
  5. I'll respond to this as hopefully the last aviation-related post on this thread. Budget cuts affecting military aircraft development in the 1990s after the breakup of the Soviet Union was par for the course. The F-22 suffered similarly and also lost some capabilities like with the deletion of the AIRST and cheek arrays, and the use of older technology RAM rather than something more akin to the F-35's Fibermat skin. Personally though, the F-22's unit cost would probably have still been somewhat higher (~US$100 million) than the Rafale even if the Air Force got all 381 F-22s that they wanted, but considering its capabilities I'd say it's a still a better return on investment. And it's obvious that the F-22 is not suitable for carrier operations; one only has to look at Lockheed's and Northrop's NATF configurations (variable sweep wing and canard delta [more like diamond actually] respectively) to see how different they would've been. To be fair to the Rafale, in terms of avionics integration it's currently quite a bit ahead of the Typhoon, given that the latter does not even have an operational AESA. As much as the Rafale and F-22 may have suffered from developmental pains and budget cuts, they've got nothing on the bureaucratic nonsense that the Typhoon had to deal with on top of all that. But it's true that the introduction of the F-35A will greatly upset the attractiveness of the European fighters (unless the US refuses to sell the F-35 to you, i.e. Saudi Arabia). The Chief of Staff of the French Air Force even admitted that. The Su-57 is considerably behind schedule especially since it had almost a complete structural redesign starting from the 6th prototype. I frankly don't see it appearing in any significant numbers until at least 2025 or so. Back to Stalingrad, @Azumazi how confident are you in the Soviet mounts actually achieving their design fire rates? For instance, Project 66 (Moskva) achieving 5.8 RPM and the Stalingrad achieving 3.26 RPM?
  6. Iowa class WW2 service was also not particularly exciting, but at least Iowa and New Jersey can lay claim to having at least conducted surface engagements, however minor it may be. Holy mother of... Did you actually use Picard578 as a source? I've seen that guy's load of horsesh*t before on aviation forums, and he's so technically and tactically ignorant that it's not even funny. Gems include things like the Dassault Rafale somehow "achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles", when the aircraft under such a load is limited by the flight control system at 4g, and losing energy during said turn (i.e. not sustained). Or using Vietnam era missile Pk in order to extrapolate the performance of contemporary systems. And I can go on and on about how bullsh*t the source is. The funny thing is, this Picard578 fellow you referenced loves cheerleading the Dassault Rafale, non-stealthy 4th generation aircraft that entered service in 2001, only 4 years before the F-22, with a program cost of €45.9 billion (or US$62.7 billion) compared to the F-22's program cost of US$66.7 billion, and yet there are only 160 Rafales built compared to 195 F-22s. Yup, clearly, with the presence of nuclear weapons, the US will never ever find itself in a situation to conduct aerial combat. Clearly the Vietnam War and Gulf War 1 were just fabrications.
  7. Hey, I'm an AP man, and that lower penetration triggers me.
  8. This might be an unintended buff for battleships with long range secondaries, i.e. German battleships, since I don't think secondary fire compromises stealth in smoke.
  9. Can we talk about how the Queen Elizabeth has inferior projectile Krupp compared to Warspite for no reason?
  10. Thanks for the armor profile. It strongly reinforces the description given on Wikipedia, which sources McLaughlin. As for the given waterline, is that at standard or full load displacement? That 50 mm deck all the way to the bow means the Stalingrad can't not be citadeled from the bow, if the citadel is modeled to be under the third deck. So a folly of a ship driven by the vanity of a dictator will bow tank anything because game mechanics. Cute.
  11. Well then, you seem to acknowledge that a CAS platform like the A-10 is ill-suited for taking on SAMs, yet it was you who was railing about the supposed ineffectiveness of the F-22 and F-35 (with no sources of citations given), platforms that are designed to operate in contested airspace (i.e. in the presence of DCA and air defense systems and SAMs) while simultaneously touting the efficacy of the A-10.
  12. It's also interesting to note that the Iowa is missing the 20 mm Oerlikon AA gun mounts on her #2 turret, as well as a few on her nose. Then again I think several other ships (Yamato among them) are also missing a few light AA guns.
  13. Bumping this thread because Colosseum at Shipbucket recently redid his drawing of the Iowa's Measure 32/1B that it wore throughout 1944. Apparently, rather than a flat black as commonly depicted, the color of the dark patterns is actually navy blue. Check it out below.
  14. I think a lot of English sources have the size of the Project 82 wrong. Most Russian sources gives length as 250.5 m (821.9 ft) and a beam of 31.6 m (103.7 ft). A size comparison looks much more reasonable. I've fixed the images to reflect the correct length. It's nevertheless still an extremely large cruiser. As a bonus, here's Stalingrad, Alaska, and Moskva. As mentioned, the large size of these ships is not due to some Soviet ingenuity, but the result of very questionable requirements and design philosophy. The fact that Alaska is closer in size and displacement to Moskva than Stalingrad speaks volumes about that.
  15. Even more of a joke is the Stalingrad's range: 5,000 nmi at 18 knots. And this is a capital ship that's the size of a treaty battleship. The entire nonsense of the F-22 and F-35 versus the A-10 is brought about by the highly questionable method of trashing the F-22 by pointing to the A-10's proven combat record, never mind that they're designed for entirely different missions. An A-10 would get annihilated in BFM just as much as the F-22's ineffectiveness at CAS.