Naval History Forums

The SD was calculated at 38664 tons standard on October 13th, 1942. I feel the US policy was to consider 38000ts the upper limit, that is 35000ts plus 3000ts for improvements in AAA, horizontal and underwater protection, so the building phase was the first modernization. SD wasn't a contemporary of ...

It all depends on how "early" the ships would have been ready.

You can still do a trip around Western Europe for the Black Sea, a trip around the North Cape for Murmansk or a trip around half the world to the Pacific fleet. It's just not likely to happen, in particular the two latter options. But it all depends on how "early" the ships had been finish...

I agree, most likely part of the Baltic or Black Sea fleet, they wouldn't have seen much naval action.

I think the best way to counter destroyers are destroyers, or cruisers for that matter.

Unremarkable in ok performance for their size, yes. Unremarkable as in poor for their size, no.

Fact is that these guns achieved penetration that were as good as any, if not better, while firing a heavier projectiles optimized for underwater trajectories.

Scuttling a ship to hasten it's sinking is different from scuttling a ship to sink it. No doubt the Germans found it necessary to hasten the sinking of Bismarck, meaning there is little doubt that the end of the ship wasn't just 5 minutes away. However, there is little doubt for me that the Germans ...

Obviously, the first thing the infantry does when the unit is being fired on, is to dismount.

The tank also makes sure there's almost always something to take cover behind. Though personally, I wouldn't trust the guy behind the wheel 100%...there's no warning for reverse in tanks.

I figure the loss of the funnel would have had a severe impact on the boilers. And one has to wonder where the list and the added draft came from if there was no water in the citadel. And if the boilers are down, where would the power for the pumps come from? And, though I hate to repeat myself, Sey...

Or hops onto the tanks. That was a very simple thing to do for the Soviets, which this way succeeded in breaking through with infantry supported tanks.

Had Seydlitz not had the support of various other vessels, it would have been lost, just like Lützow was. Seydlitz was not capable of making it back to port on her own.

Wasn't the stern breaking apart due to accumulated damage?

That is NOT what you said. It is what I said. You just don't get it. You fail at putting it into the right context. Without wishing to turn this into an excercise in English comprehension, you stated that an infantry platoon supported by Sherman/T-34/whatever was superior to an infantry platoon not...

Ok, so you really didn't get it. What I said was that infantry supported by a tank is better off than infantry not supported by a tank. Has nothing at all to do with nationalities involved nor with tactical use and abuse of the units nor with historical campaigns. You may find this meaning most easi...

You really didn't get this?