Discussion in 'Help and Rules' started by Ian the Admin, Mar 19, 2017.
Who do you like? Scharnhorst vs. Alaska? And at point-blank range?
The local shark population for the win.
IOW, Mutual Assured Destruction?
20 dollars donated.
I don't like setting up periodical payments but as a long standing member of the site its only right to help with the costs
Well, to utterly derail this...
At point blank range both ships can blow the pougies out of the other. The Scharnhorst's 28 CM SK C/34 can punch through 18" of belt at ~9,000 yards, Alaska's belt is 9". Alaska's 12"/50 can punch through ~19" of belt at the same range, Scharnhorst's belt is 13.5".
Sharnhorst has NO zone of invulnerability against the Alaska's main battery. Alaska does have a zone of invulnerability starting at ~27,000 yards, and has a 5,000 yard absolute range advantage (35K vs. 30K) that it can maintain thanks to an extra couple knots of speed and a better hull form (the Scharnhorsts were terribly wet ships). That Alaska also has even better fire control radar than the KM ship (which is saying something since Scharnhorst has the longest range combat gun hit ever). At range the Alaska pounds the Sharnhorst to scrap, although I am far from certain that either ship can actually sink the other at range (something that was generally true for the big boys unless a Golden BB happened).
Sorry for the misunderstanding, as I was unclear in my ignorance, while you are a naval historian. What I MEANT to say was that in my little scenario the two vessels are fully loaded, guns ready to fire, and at spitting distance (even the AA can hit the opposing ship!) Oh, and traveling side-by-side at the start, with both ship's engines moving at full steam. What happens then?
1) The Scharnhorst-class crews suffered from alcoholism?
1) In that case one can only hope.
Calculating* how much of the scrap metal from the Alaskas is now in USA coinage is left as an exercise for the reader...
*waiting for someone to make an argument about the HMS Warspite*
My apologies, but @CalBear you're a naval historian? I wasn't aware of this...
I'm not a professional historian of any kind.
Enthusiastic, well read amateur.
BTW folks: We are really derailing this very useful thread.
Finally got paid so my tip is sent. It is a good feeling to contribute.
So...Alaska vs. Warspite?
What derailing? "Mission Accomplished" here. Unless we are keeping this thread open, with continuing NEW contributions, past 2018, which Ian is suggesting could get him a reserved room in Club Fed.
well he probably deserves it after all the money he's spent on the site over the years
Maybe chucking in some money to cover previous years might be worth thinking about
Agreed, but that would start to run into tax problems. And Canada, unlike America, has some actual hurdles to registering a nonprofit; south of the border you can literally get AH.com registered as a religious organization if enough of us endorse Orthodox Sheepism and use Chat to post in a thread about sheep every Tuesday, and boom, no taxes.
'MURICA! Land of the ridiculously obvious tax islands...
Fixed that for you, Worf
Actually, everything I'm taking in is taxed (which I factored in already... I'm not in a super high tax bracket right now). Web sites can't count as nonprofit unless you explicitly create a nonprofit organization, which would be a giant pain.
And contrary to what some people may think, you can't get religious exemptions unless you're organization's MAIN purpose is religious.
Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption
Separate names with a comma.