A good site about Japanese Navy..and a good (argumented) classification of BB

[Gerula]

http://www.combinedf....com/kaigun.htm

http://www.combinedf...com/baddest.htm

[Masterrix]

the main page is very good and informative

 

but this "ranking" is outdated, incomplete and pseudo objective, based on subjective values

 

I ve readen dozens of posts in the www, blaming this ranking as some kind of joke

[Gigaton]

Masterrix, on 16 January 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

this "ranking" is outdated, incomplete and pseudo objective, based on subjective values

I don't know about pseudo objective, but agreed on the other parts. One glaring oddity the decision to entirely ignore Bismarck's main deck for vertical protection.

[Masterrix]

Gigaton, on 16 January 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I don't know about pseudo objective, but agreed on the other parts. One glaring oddity the decision to entirely ignore Bismarck's main deck for vertical protection.

true, this underrates every space array system (Bis, Richi, VV)
btw: the armor rating should be splitten in sub-ratings for bomb hits and shell hits, including passive protection effects like fuzing, decaping,yawing
I would also examine the overall protection volume against heavy, medium, small caliber hits
the actual ranking is completely ignoring all benefits of Bismarcks armor scheme, advantaging "AoN" ships

Im also missing "dispersion" and "citadel lenght" as important factors.

it should also be mentioned that the fire-control rating and AA rating is suspect

comparing the AA and radar suites of late-war contenders with a BB that sunk in early war is some kind of unfair. Maybe "Tirpitz" would have been the better choice

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Every new and unknown information is welcome

[NGTM_1R]

Masterrix, on 16 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Maybe "Tirpitz" would have been the better choice

To be honest, it's not like the Germans ever developed effective Radar FC, nor Tirpitz ever really got her AA armament fixed. The comparison wouldn't do huge favors.

And anybody who didn't already know about combinedfleet should probably have their license to post about WW2 ships revoked.

[Masterrix]

NGTM_1R, on 16 January 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

To be honest, it's not like the Germans ever developed effective Radar FC, nor Tirpitz ever really got her AA armament fixed. The comparison wouldn't do huge favors.

1. Tirpitz AA was upgraded and did a fairly good job. Being not the best doesn't mean you're bad.

2. Im not an expert in radar but there are a lot of evidences that german radar wasn't as far behind as some ppls believe. Maybe u should update your knowlege instead of following outdated myths
if u are interested, follow the posts of "Dave Saxton" in the following threads. This guy has studied a lot of historical documents and knows much more about german radar than me, you or any other guy in our forum
http://www.kbismarck...php?f=13&t=1724
http://bismarck-clas...htuser=0&page=2
http://www.kbismarck...t=3265&start=45

NGTM_1R, on 16 January 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

And anybody who didn't already know about combinedfleet should probably have their license to post about WW2 ships revoked.

im sure, we are all confirmed with comebinedfleet, but this shouldnt keep us from discussing . . .

[Gigaton]

Masterrix, on 16 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

true, this underrates every space array system (Bis, Richi, VV)
btw: the armor rating should be splitten in sub-ratings for bomb hits and shell hits, including passive protection effects like fuzing, decaping,yawing

Those things are discussed in Okun's article at least, on which much of the figures presented there are based on. For example, fuzing capability of Bismarck's WD is noted there. That article is also available at Combined Fleet: http://www.combinedf...om/okun_biz.htm On the other hand, since the armour ratings in the Best BB article are based on Okun's research it's well worth noting that his Decapping Revisited article does not support ability of SoDak's or Iowa's STS sides to decap German 380mm projectile that is used as the yardstick in the Best BB article. Decapping is the reason Iowa and SoDak are attributed a good vertical protection in this article. Take that away and they will end up with a low end belt rating.

I wouldn't have given greater importance for horizontal protection either, not in an article that focuses on battleship duel. The secondary armament is not considered at all for heavyweight champion, so why aircraft are mentioned as reason to give greater importance to horizontal protection eludes me.

Masterrix, on 16 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Im also missing "dispersion" and "citadel lenght" as important factors.

I figured the dispersion problems are the reason they chose to axe points from VV's main guns, as they do mention it in the notes. On the other hand it's rather weird if VV is axed for that and Richelieus, which seem to have had even bigger problems with this, are not. And in any case, the Italians were rectifying these problems during the war and were apparently successful.

I also note that the penetration figures used in the article, derived from Okun's Facehard program, are rather different from what more recent revisions of the program give. Compare the table at Combined Fleet site (http://www.combinedf...om/f_guns.htm#1) to the more recent ones at Okun's own page (http://www.navweaps....ation_index.htm).

[Krieg]

Still a good site anyway.....