Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

@MyRedghost How can you call the South Dakoda's a variation of the North Carolina class? They were TOTALLY different ships. South Dakoda's were over 60 feet shorter, had more powerful engines, a sloped internal belt vs an external belt on the North Carolina's, 1 stack compared to two on the North Carolina's better protection, shorter range than the North Carolinas. The would be like saying the The North Carolinas were a variation of the Colorado class, not accurate at all.
2
@MyRedghost Agreed, interestingly the NC and SD class might have been more effective than the Iowa's at long range due to a steeper angle of the shells in plunging fire making them less likely to ricochet off deck armor.
2
LOL What makes you think they are using NATO tactics?
2
Except the Alaska was not a treaty cruiser.
1
The fact that you call the Iowa class only ok protection pretty much disqualifies everything you say. The Iowa's were the best protected battleships ever built not named Yamato. Her internal 12.1 belt was sloped at 19 degrees giving it the equivalent protection of 17.3 inches of vertical armor giving her almost three inches more effective armor than the KGV's vertical belt of 14.7 inches. That is not including the 1.5 inches of STS steel on the outer hull and the .875 or 22.2 mm backing plate the sloped internal armor belt was mounted to.
1
@TTTT-oc4eb You would be incorrect sir. The Iowa's had slightly thicker STS Shell plating and STS backing plates offering slightly better protection than the South Dakoda's. The bow was vulnerable but it is not like the enemy would be aiming for it. Battleship fire back then was an area of effect type of weapon.
1
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized It is funny when people reference tweets to make a point. That secondary belt over the main belt....TOTALLY unnecessary and obsolete. The Bismarck's armor package was a WW1 design where Naval artillery was used at much closer ranges and flatter trajectories. In WW2 the Bismarck would have been very vulnerable to plunging fire. The Iowa's armor scheme was light years better, that is in real life but no so much in World Of Warships where most armchair experts seem to get their information from.
1
@TTTT-oc4eb LOL Bismarck's armor scheme is not better than Iowa's in ANY circumstances. The Iowa's internal inclined belt protected by STS hull plating and backing plate gave her an EFFECTIVE thickness of 17.3 inches of VERTICAL armor. The Bismarck did NOT have an inclined belt and the MAXIMUM thickness of her VERTICAL armor belt was 12.6 inches.
1
@TTTT-oc4eb Again you would be wrong. You are just the standard internet user that when anyone disagrees with your opinion you label them in order to try and discredit them. I am not a US Patriot but I did actually serve on the Iowa as a gunners mate in 16 inch turret one. What I am saying is that the Bismarck is vastly overrated. There is so much mythology surrounding her I guess it was from the lucky shot where she sank the Hood. In a 1v1 engagement any of the ships from the North Carolina, South Dakoda or Iowa class would have had little difficulty in blowing the Bismarck out of the water.
1
If you swap out the Ukranian Army for US forces and the war would have been over in less than 30 days with the collapse of Russia.
1
The Bismarck is the Avro Arrow of the battleship would. Shrouded in mythology that massively overinflates its technology and ability.
1