Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Zumwalt's guns take on a battleship?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Any positive contribution my posts were intended to be were quickly transformed into defensive retorts. Some posters here may be classified as internet trolls and compulsive martinets.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BBSupporter View Post
      Any positive contribution my posts were intended to be were quickly transformed into defensive retorts. Some posters here may be classified as internet trolls and compulsive martinets.
      I don't have a side in this issue, but I agree that derisive comments and insults/ personal remarks are inappropriate and the discussion should stick with debating the subject without the personal comments. Nobody's opinions should be suppressed here as long as it doesn't break forum rules. This is a discussion forum. JMO

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BBSupporter View Post
        Any positive contribution my posts were intended to be were quickly transformed into defensive retorts. Some posters here may be classified as internet trolls and compulsive martinets.
        Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
        I don't have a side in this issue, but I agree that derisive comments and insults/ personal remarks are inappropriate and the discussion should stick with debating the subject without the personal comments. Nobody's opinions should be suppressed here as long as it doesn't break forum rules. This is a discussion forum. JMO
        This is a discussion forum, true. But think of this board also like a private club. Membership here is earned, not given. And while you're quoting what you believe to be forum rules, you might want to read them first.


        Because you both obviously have not read the http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...3-13-11-a.html nor the http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...val-guide.html.


        Just a sample from the Forum Guidelines:

        § 1) Posting 16. when presenting an argument as factual, please take care to be able to back up your argument with actual facts or evidence that you are able to source. Arguments based on unsubstantiated rumors or conspiracy theories are frowned down upon.

        And from the Semi-Official (and very much encouraged to read) WAB Survival Guide

        13. Show respect for dead threads If the thread in question has not seen a post in a couple months and is dormant you might be able to breathe new life into it. However unless there is some ground breaking revelation-if a thread has been idle for 6 months or more its dead and leave the corpse alone.



        You both realize that this subject has been discussed and debated right into the ground, do you not? All you're during is trying to resurrect a corpse in the presence of the people that actually worked on these very ships. For years. Repeatedly. And this subject has been, again, discussed and debated right into the ground. Repeatedly. For years.

        Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Is it simply much easier to claim the role of the put-upon victim?
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          This is a discussion forum, true. But think of this board also like a private club. Membership here is earned, not given. And while you're quoting what you believe to be forum rules, you might want to read them first.


          Because you both obviously have not read the http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...3-13-11-a.html nor the http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...val-guide.html.


          Just a sample from the Forum Guidelines:

          § 1) Posting 16. when presenting an argument as factual, please take care to be able to back up your argument with actual facts or evidence that you are able to source. Arguments based on unsubstantiated rumors or conspiracy theories are frowned down upon.

          And from the Semi-Official (and very much encouraged to read) WAB Survival Guide

          13. Show respect for dead threads If the thread in question has not seen a post in a couple months and is dormant you might be able to breathe new life into it. However unless there is some ground breaking revelation-if a thread has been idle for 6 months or more its dead and leave the corpse alone.



          You both realize that this subject has been discussed and debated right into the ground, do you not? All you're during is trying to resurrect a corpse in the presence of the people that actually worked on these very ships. For years. Repeatedly. And this subject has been, again, discussed and debated right into the ground. Repeatedly. For years.

          Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Is it simply much easier to claim the role of the put-upon victim?
          I have read the rules, thank you very much. And I'm not an inexperienced civvie, so please don't make that assumption about me. Even though I've only recently started posting here, I've been reading these forums for years. Also if you actually read through all of my posts from the last 2 days you will see that I'm not trying to bring back any battleships, just offered some counter points, that's all. It's called having a discussion. And I've remained civil. I believe they should remain museums, but there are military professionals out there that do advocate for a more powerfully armed NGFS ship. We would not have the 3 Zumwalt class DDG's if that wasn't the case. This and the other thread have both "jumped the shark" and I'm bowing out. Have a great day.

          Comment


          • комисса́р,

            What would you like me to talk about?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
              There is a reason that fighter planes of old had gun cameras. SO that the experts could analysis the data on film to see if the "I shot down 5 Zeros" stories were true. And I'm not saying the pilots were lying either. They "saw" the enemy planes take good hits from their guns and claimed a kill. Only after doing BDA post flight does the correct picture come out.

              A crew member on the ship has no way of knowing how good the ship shot.

              A FO or SFCP calling in "EOM, Good effect on target." Means that rounds are no longer needed. Post analysis is what determines effectiveness. It took X number of rounds to Suppress/neutralize/destroy "Y" type of target using "Z" weapon system. The same type of target was s/n/d'ed by "A" weapon system with "B" number of rounds.
              Then it gets broke down even further. I won't bore you with the details.

              And when evaluating effectiveness of a weapon system against other systems there is no other way except by that type of after action analysis.

              BTW, it wasn't just the NJ that was taking when and how to steam in the Sea Dragon. The President was deciding where air strikes would take place every day.



              If thats how you feel, OK.

              Want to discuss her shitty performance in 1983 with someone that was there?;)
              There is no better source of her performance during Vietnam then Snyder himself. He was CO and in touch with SecNav and Spotters almost every day on station.

              New Jersey was not controlled for just Sea Dragon, she was controlled for the majority of her stay. And unlike most ships she had to file daily not weekly combat reports.

              She would have been deployed for the second cruise, her spare barrels were already shipped to Subic via the USS Gunston Hall for change out. That alone shows forward planning for the only BB at sea at the time. The barrels she carried into Vietnam were brand new since 1957 regunning.

              Pretty Ironic that much of her gunnery praise came from none other then the Marines on the ground and their Brass in person when they visited aboard on several occassions. They did most of the spotting in Vietnam.

              The above posts were not discussing Lebannon, It was discussing Vietnams deployment and no doubt she showed how accurate those guns can be.

              Lebannon unlike Vietnam and Korea will always be a blemish to those that criticize her gunnery. However, putting all of the conditions present at the time for Lebannons deployment is not eaxtly an equal footing footing for criticisms.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
                I have read the rules, thank you very much. And I'm not an inexperienced civvie, so please don't make that assumption about me. Even though I've only recently started posting here, I've been reading these forums for years. Also if you actually read through all of my posts from the last 2 days you will see that I'm not trying to bring back any battleships, just offered some counter points, that's all. It's called having a discussion. And I've remained civil. I believe they should remain museums, but there are military professionals out there that do advocate for a more powerfully armed NGFS ship. We would not have the 3 Zumwalt class DDG's if that wasn't the case. This and the other thread have both "jumped the shark" and I'm bowing out. Have a great day.
                Tom, Thank you for reading the rules. And if you don't mind, would please expand on your knowledge and experience, of course without violating OPSEC or divulging personal information. It gives people an idea of your area of expertise. And you have stated clearly what the rest of us have been trying to say for days: Both threads have jumped the shark. But that happened years ago and the threads should've been locked. That's on the Staff for not doing that.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment

                Working...
                X