- Thread starter
-
- #181
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So what effect would Mitchell had based on this alternate history?
For starters the Mark 14 wasn't around in 1921, it would have been some aerial version of probably the Mark 10.Depends if it a mk14 torpedo coz you can shoot them all day and not sink a thing.
How will hitting a stationary battleship with a torpedo prove anything?
Part of the difficulty of the torpedo run is that the ship is moving at speed and can be turning away and shooting back at you. Also in some cases the speed of the torpedo was roughly same as the ship so you could even out run it or out range it.
*SNIP*
How many torpedoes were "fired" from an airplane in WW1 and actually hit a ship?There was plenty of torpedoes fired in ww1.
All the data needed is there.
Battleships in refit had a more extensive underwater protection from mines and torpedo and so if Ostfriesland didn't have that then you are learning nothing.
Battleships in refit had a more extensive underwater protection from mines and torpedo and so if Ostfriesland didn't have that then you are learning nothing.
I still don't understand at all here.
Ok....let's do a test of a torpedo against a stationary ship.
What is the learning here? That a torpedo can hit a stationary ship? I would hope it would.otherwise it wouldn't be a torpedo. Why not on a nice sunny day with very calm seas? Ok. Perfect.
There is something called the scientific method and it's not been used here.
So therefore the results are invalid and it's a three ring circus instead.
When magnetic torpedoes were first fired in anger they didn't work. Should have but didn't. Because the magnetic fields are different around the world so what would work here won't work there. So a single one off test proves absolutely nothing.
You set up your test/s to test as few things as possible at one time.
I think we clearly showed that this just wasn't about "Mitchell is wanting to sink a Battleship". You have a very biased view of this, but that's ok everyone is entitled to an opinion even if they choose to ignore historical facts!Again this is testing nothing.
Mitchell is wanting to sink a Battleship.
So it's a little difficult to test the effects of torpedoes when the ship is sunk in deep water and not recoverable.
What historical context?
The battle ship is obsolete.
So let build battleships!
So 10 battleships were built? I don't see your pointThe Americans build 10 new battleships in 1930-1940s. Why build obsolete weapons?
And was going to build the Montanas so what context? Total failure? And why am I biased? Because there were plenty of all types of ships in ww2 which got home after taking damage. That's not bias but a fact. I can list various ships if you wish.
Proof is in the pudding and so plenty of battleship steel to chow down on.
So the atomic and jet age saw the end of the battleship. Not Mitchell.
1. So what do you think Mitchell's agenda was???I am not biased. Mitchell was as he was using the tests to further his own agenda and so was biased towards the result that he wanted.
What historical context?
The battle ship is obsolete.
So let build battleships!
The Americans build 10 new battleships in 1930-1940s. Why build obsolete weapons?
And was going to build the Montanas so what context? Total failure? And why am I biased? Because there were plenty of all types of ships in ww2 which got home after taking damage. That's not bias but a fact. I can list various ships if you wish.
Proof is in the pudding and so plenty of battleship steel to chow down on.
So the atomic and jet age saw the end of the battleship. Not Mitchell.
I am not biased. Mitchell was as he was using the tests to further his own agenda and so was biased towards the result that he wanted.
And bias has no place in a true science as you can either tweak the result of even falsify results to suit.